The Scientific Nature of Postprocessualism

Abstract

The compatibility of processual and postprocessual archaeology has been heavily debated. This discussion is frequently phrased in terms of scientific vs. nonscientific/humanistic archaeology. We suggest that the "postprocessual debate" is based on a mischaracterization of science that is pervasive in archaeology, and is largely unnecessary when a more reasonable view of the nature of science is considered. To demonstrate this point, we begin our discussion by identifying several commonalities within most postprocessual approaches to provide a foundation for our discussion. We then consider the two classic criteria used to differentiate science and nonscience, Baconian inductivism and falsification, and demonstrate why these views lead to an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of science. We next examine seven attributes that are commonly accepted as characteristics of science in order to provide a more accurate view of the nature and workings of science. Based on this discussion, we argue that much postprocessual research is in fact scientific, and we ultimately conclude that postprocessual approaches as currently applied can contribute to a scientific understanding of the archaeological record.

Revolution Fulfilled? Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, a Generation On. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by Ian Hodder. (New Directions in Archaeology Series.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007 (2nd edition); ISBN-13: 9780521035507 paperback, £18.99 & US$34.99, 196 pp.

“…For archaeology this seems to me to be a perverse move that brings out all the discipline's weaknesses, in terms of the kinds of questions that archaeological material can be convincingly used as evidence to address, and also short-changes the areas where the subject has a unique contribution to make. In fact, the tension between questions that archaeology can easily address and those that people are interested in is arguably already evident here, in that a number of the contributors to this volume have long since moved away from any archaeological interests to much more ethnographic ones; this despite the fact that the epistemological issues raised by at least some versions of post-processual archaeology are not so very different from processual ones, as Wylie points out in her contribution to the book and as VanPool & VanPool (1999) have also subsequently argued.…”

“…As Trigger (2006) points out, in the UK people assumed that processual and post-processual archaeology were incompatible and that one would eventually overcome the other. In the USA there is more an acceptance that processual archaeology was positive, and that postprocessual archaeology could be incorporated into it in some merged way (Hegmon 2003;Cowgill 1993;VanPool & VanPool 1999). McAnany suggests that 'presently, Mesoamerican studies, and Maya archaeology in particular, can be characterized as a synergism of processual and post-processual approaches'.…”

Hunter-Gatherers

“…McGuire 1992(cf. McGuire , 1993VanPool and VanPool 1999), the most extreme holding that objectivity is impossible (Shanks 1992;Shanks andTilley 1987, 1992). Perhaps the most well-known-and most closely aligned with Marxism-is the form of post-processualism originating out of the United Kingdom, mostly associated with Hodder and other scholars at Cambridge University.…”

Materialism, Mode of Production, and a Millennium of Change in Southern Mexico

“…Theoretical debates within archaeology are frequently framed in epistemological terms of what constitutes proof and how to go about evaluating competing interpretations (e.g., VanPool and VanPool 1999). As relevant as epistemological differences may be, a more fundamental divide exists between scholars who adopt idealist and materialist ontologies of culture (see Cunningham 2003: 23-27;Fig.…”