Special section David Clarke’s ‘Archaeology:the loss of innocence’ (1973) 25 years after

EDITEDBY CAROLINE MALONE& SIMON STODDART”

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Editor of 18). This is a debate that Hawkes (1973: 177) ANTIQUITY,Glyn Daniel, invited a series of re- addressed in his response to Clarke’s ‘Archae- actions to the cross-currents of archaeology at ology: the loss of innocence’. Hawkes was an- the time. The first was a conservative statement other scholar convixed of the dangers, and on archaeology as the servant of history by seduction, of equating archaeology with pre- Jacquetta Hawkes (1968). This assumed the history. mantle of the ‘Proper study of mankind’, and In the same issue of ANTIQUITY,Clarke was urged that the humanistic study of archaeol- invited to review Watson et al. (1971) with a ogy be saved from the encroachment of science. prescient realization that ‘there is little reason Such was the reaction by archaeologists over to suppose that the positivist philosophy of the age of 40 to this article that Glyn Daniel physics is especially appropriate for archaeol- was prompted to offer a prize (which would ogy. . .’ (1972: 238). The views of Hogarth (1972), still buy a student today two years of ANTIQ- published in the following issue of ANTIQUITY, UITY). The prize was to be awarded for the best were a fresh presentation of the conservative response by a young archaeologist (presumably reaction to the New Archaeology movement, younger than 40) to the question ‘Whither ar- concentrating more on the medium than the chaeology?’ The winning contributions were message. This paper, in many ways, brought published as two essays by Evien NeustupnG the discussion to the completion of a first cy- (1971) and Glynn Isaac (1971). The second of cle and prepared the ground for Clarke. A more these particularly addressed the challenge of positive statement by Christopher Hawkes Jacquetta Hawkes, and introduced Clarke as a (1973), published after ‘archaeology: the loss protagonist; although the more explicit state- of innocence’, marks the closure of a second ment of the new archaeology was an article by cycle. Richard Watson - ‘The “new archaeology” of The most memorable contribution to these the 1960s’ -published in ANTIQUITYin 1972, debates was undoubtedly the one published 25 which drew a strong distinction between an- years ago by Clarke himself, ‘Archaeology: the thropological archaeology and classical archae- loss of innocence’ (1973).l This has come to be ology. An essay Clarke had prepared to appear considered, at least in Britain, one of the semi- in the Cambridge economic history of Europe nal statements of the New Archaeology, by one worked hard to bridge this potential divide of its leading proponents. It is this that we com- between history and archaeology, although this memorate here. In spite of the fame of this state- important theme is only touched upon in ‘Ar- ment in the Anglo-American world, we should chaeology: the loss of innocence’. Unlike many not exaggerate its impact outside Britain. North American New Archaeologists who re- Courbin (1988) chose to concentrate on other jected history, Clarke stressed that ‘work in text- statements of Clarke. In a more global statement aided contexts will increasingly provide vital 1 The ANTIQUITYweb site presents ‘Archaeology:the loss experiments in which purely archaeological data of innocence’ in full, together with several letters and other may be controlled by documentary data, bear- reactions published in ANTIQUITYin 1973: ing in mind the inherent biases of both’ (1973: http://intarch.ac.uk/antiquity/hp/cl-intro.htm1

* Antiquity, New Hall, Cambridge CR3 ODF, England. ANTIQUITY72 (1998):676-7 DAVID CLARKE’S ‘ARCHAEOLOGY THE LOSS OF INNOCENCE’ (1973) 25 YEARS AFTER 677 on recent theory in Italy, the role of Clarke is chaeology to history and the social sciences. much less pronounced (Guidi 1996). A recent Three others are now older than 40, and thus statement of German theory (Bernbeck 1997) would not have qualified for the Glyn Daniel gives almost no attention to Clarke at all (and challenge of ‘Whither archaeology?’. The edi- much more to other New Archaeologists). This, tors welcome further contributions in the spirit at first, appears to be a pattern of limited rec- of Glyn Daniel’s invitation: ‘a free for all, new ognition that could be illustrated on a more glo- and old’. We can now add ‘post-archaeology’ bal level. Perhaps some of what follows can to archaeology and its other relationships, if illustrate the foresight and creativity of Clarke one follows the suggestion of Chris Tilley’s last in perceiving the developments that continued sentence! after his death (only three years after the publi- In the Special section: cation of ‘the loss of innocence’),often in the hands Alessandro Guidi discusses the reaction to of his pupils. Clarke from an Italian and southern Eu- ‘Archaeology: the loss of innocence’ had an ropean perspective. impact greater than its level of citation, and Michael Parker Pearson describes his under- the current Editors2 have invited five current standing of Clarke as an important figure practitioners of archaeological theory to com- in promoting social theory, and how this ment on this seminal statement and, in turn, has changed since Clarke’s original writings. have asked one of David Clarke’s pupils to com- Anthony Sinclair approaches Clarke from the ment on their appraisal, a form of open review. perspective of a Palaeolithic archaeologist, We are conscious we might be building on a noting the invigorating optimism of his genealogy of self-commentary, but nevertheless general theory of archaeology. consider it to be an important academic exer- Christopher Tilley, one of Clarke’s last students cise. Not all those invited felt able to accept at Peterhouse, reflects on the impact of the invitation, but there are represented here a his work, and also on his ‘innocence’and range of views from Britain (Palaeolithic and nai’vety of archaeological social theory. recent prehistory), the Mediterranean and the Bruce Trigger assesses the historical role of New World. One of the authors, Bruce Trigger Clarke, within the broader development (1970), contributed to the ANTIQUITY debate of of archaeology, both before 1973, and since the 1970s by exploring the relationship of ar- the publication of ‘the loss of innocence’. Andrew Sherratt comments on the papers and 2 We are grateful to Dr James Whitley for giving us the provides his own assessment of Clarke’s suggestion. contribution.

References BERNBECK,R. 1997. Theorien derArchao1ogie. Basel: A. Francke GLIIDI,A. 1996. Processual and post-processual trends in Ital- Verlag. ian archaeology, in A. Bietti, A. Cazzella, 1. Johnson &A. CLARKE,D.L. 1972. Review of Patty Jo Watson, Steven A. LeBlanc Voorrips (ed.),Theoretical and methodologicalproblems: & Charles L. Redman: Explanation in archaeology: an ex- 29-36. Forli: ABACO. plicitly scientific approach (19711, Antiquity46: 237-9. HAWKES,C. 1973. Innocence retrieval in archaeology, Antiq- 1973. Archaeology: the loss of innocence, Antiquity47: 6- uity47: 176-8. 18. HAWKES,J. 1968. The proper study of mankind, Antiquity42: CLARKE,D.L.t 1979. The economic context of trade and indus- 255-62. try in Barbarian Europe till Roman Times, in Analjical ISAAC,G. 1971. Whither archaeology?, Antiquity 45: 123-9. archaeologist: collected papers of David L. Clarke, ed- NEUsruPM, E. 1971. Whither archaeology?, Antiquity45: 34-9. ited by his colleagues: 263-331. London: Academic Press. TRIGGER,B. 1970. Aims in prehistoric archaeology, Antiquity COURBIN,P. 1988. What is archaeology? An essay an the na- 44: 26-37. ture of archaeological research. London: University of WATSON,R. 1972. The ‘new archaeology’ of the 1960s, Antiq- Chicago Press. uity46: 210-14. 678 SPECIAL SECTION Clarke in Mediterranean archaeology

ALESSANDROGUIDI*

When ANTIQUITY published the historical arti- projects and experiences in Mediterranean ar- cle by Clarke, I was a 20-year-old student, deeply chaeology. engaged in field activities and substantially torn Nai’ve as they might seem, our efforts of the away from the ‘theoretical’ debate. ’80s were an attempt to break the overwhelm- My archaeological loss of innocence hap- ing climate of relativism and intellectual com- pened only in the early 1980s, when I discov- pliance that dominated Italian archaeology. As ered (thanks to people like Maurizio Tosi and a matter of fact, the use of processual catego- Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri) the enormous ex- ries and of the anthropological theory and a planatory potential of processual theories. complete integration of these ‘keys’ of inter- It would be absurd to label the whole of Italian pretation of the archaeological data with our archaeology as ‘atheoretical’;as a matter of fact, tradition of studies are the best ways to grap- a powerful theoretical machine, the Marxist ple with problems like the study of early state theory, had operated from the late 1960s, thanks formation in Iron Age Italy, a classical ‘taboo’ to the group of Dialoghi di Archeologia. The of our archaeology, only in recent years finally problem was in the idealistic roots of our (aca- acquiring the dignity of an historical question demic) culture, characterized by a programmatic (see, also for the bibliography, Carandini 1997). divorce between humanistic and scientific stud- Coming back to Clarke’s article, it must be ies and from a substantial lack of interest for recognized that, at the time of its publication, the anthropological theories. there was no reaction on the Italian scene (prob- For a young Marxist-committed scholar of ably also because very few persons knew it!), prehistory, as I was, New Archaeology brought Apart from an articleheview of Analytical ar- fresh air in this environment, allowing the open- chaeology by the Polish archaeologist ing of previously unthinkable perspectives in Tabaczynsky - well-acquainted with Italian the explanation of an impressively growing archaeology and introduced, on that occasion, corpus of archaeological data. by the Italian scholar Gabriella Maetzke - The 1980s saw the formation of an ‘Italian’ published in 1976 in Archeologia Medievale group of scholars that in many congresses and (Tabaczynsky 1976), the ‘loss of innocence’ is seminars in the Anglo-Saxon countries or in quoted (not by chance, in the brief season of Italy could profitably exchange their points of Italian ‘processual’archaeology) in some ‘theo- view with the protagonists of processual (and, retical’ articles of the late 1970s and ’80s (e.g. in some cases, post-processual) archaeology Barich 1977-82; 1982; Maetzke 1981; Cuomo (Cuomo di Caprio 1986; Guidi 1987; 1996a). di Caprio 1986; De Guio 1988-89; 1989),often This ‘burst’ of theoretical interest ended in as a symbol of the need for a renewal of ar- the late ’80s (but not our participation in con- chaeology in our own country. ferences, as demonstrated by the last Bourne- It is more interesting to investigate the gen- mouth TAG, with two ‘Italian’ sessions!). In the eral impact of Clarke’s works in Italy and in meantime, the debate on processual theories Spain. Examining the bibliography we discover spread also in Classical and Medieval environ- that Beaker pottery of Great Britain and Ire- ments, with the important consequence of a land was readily reviewed in Italy (Cazzella generalized loss of innocence of our archae- 1971).The same scholar, Alberto Cazzella, criti- ology; in the same years, a parallel debate de- cally quotes Analytical archaeology in an arti- veloped in Spain, building the premises for cle of the early 1970s (Cazzella 1972); this an ever-improving network of exchanges, notwithstanding, the book was never reviewed

* Instituto di Storia antica, Facolth di Lettere e Filosofia, Universita di Verona, Vicolo dietro San Francesco 5, Verona 37129, Italy. aguidi8chiostro.univr.it ANTIQUITY72 (1998): 678-80 DAVID CLARKE’S ‘ARCHAEOLOGY THE LOSS OF INNOCENCE’ (1973) 25 YEARS AFTER 679 by any Italian archaeologist, and a translation ries and the ‘mainstream’ cultural approach of to appear in a new ‘theoretical’ series was an- European prehistory. nounced only this year, while in Spain the book For the same reasons, a ‘continental’ tradition was already translated in the ’80s (Clarke 1984). of settlement archaeology, whose roots go back It should be remembered, as a demonstration to the surveys and the extensive excavations of of the great popularity of this book, that already the period between the two World Wars, could in 1969 a collective work of Turkish scholars not remain indifferent to Clarke’s speculation on was published, with the significant title Analitik the ‘levels of resolution’ of spatial archaeology. arkeologi (DinCol& Kantman 1969). This never-ending critical ‘dialogue’between The field in which Clarke’s work was more Clarke and many of us (also on the Classical and influential in both countries is settlement ar- Medieval side) is, overall, a good demonstration chaeology. In Italy, the congress about ‘Economy of the growing need for an integration between and territorial organization in the prehistoric the anthropological and the historical explana- societies’, held in Rome in 1982,in which spatial tions, after the ‘Great Divide’ of the last decades. analysis techniques (Thiessen polygons, site catchment analysis, etc.) were employed for the What is the legacy of Clarke’s ’loss of explanation of Italian archaeological data. innocence’? Economia e organizzazione (1982)was also the It is difficult for the reader of the 1990s to avoid first occasion for a ‘public’ presentation of Spa- the impression that it fully reflects the climate of tial Archaeology (Cardarelli 1982); in the fol- optimism and trust in science that dominated the lowing years these themes were recurrently held, ’60sand the early ’70s;this notwithstanding, many in congresses, books and articles, by many schol- observations seem impressively up-to-date. ars (for the bibliography see Guidi 1996b). One example, among others, is the In Spain things went still further; as a mat- prophetical (and often unheeded) call for the ter of fact, Arqueologia Espacial was the name building of predepositional, depositional and chosen by Francisco Burillo for the National postdepositional theories; the present climate congress on ‘Distribution and Mutual Relation- of discard of processual items is effectively jus- ships of Settlements’ held in Teruel in 1984 tified from the ascertainment of the distance that was the first true occasion of meeting for many between the refined theories and a still abso- young researchers engaged in Prehistoric, Clas- lutely poorly unknown archaeological record. sical and Medieval Archaeology (Arqueologia Again, in this field some Spanish and Italian Espacial 1, 1984-85). Moreover, the next meet- scholars worked very hard, reaching a good and ing, held in the same place in 1986, was signifi- refined theoretical level. Not by chance, the cantly named ‘Colloquium on the Microspace’ fourth Teruel meeting was dedicated to the post- [Arqueologia Espacial2, 1986-87). depositional transformations (Arqueologfa The recognition of Clarke’s influence on Ital- Espacial4,1993-96); on the other side, Giovanni ian and Spanish archaeology indicates clearly Leonardi, Claudio Balista and Armando De Guio that in these countries, as well as in Eastern created a ‘school’ devoted to the improvement Europe, he was, for many years, the most popular of the techniques of excavation and survey, well among the New Archaeologists. aware of these complex problems (see e.g. Yet in the early ’~OS,Binford harshly criti- Leonardi 1992; De Guio 1992). cized Clarke, who in Analytical archaeology It is impossible to predict the future, but is ‘had adopted the statistical procedures of Sokal highly probable that the problems connected with and Sneath . . . , the sophisticated locational formation processes and the compositional char- approaches of Peter Haggett . . . , and the meta- acteristics of archaeologicaldeposits will be a major language of system theory, but all of this . . . item of debate in the years to come. This will be, integrated into a traditionalist paradigm of cul- probably, the real ‘interpretive’ archaeology, a ture’ (Binford 1972: 330; italics are mine). This powerful tool to reshape our theories. is, effectively, the best interpretation of the criti- Using Clarke’smetaphor, it is right to acknowl- cal (if also often negative) attention paid to edge how the loss of innocence can be only a Clarke’s work in a traditionalist academic en- first step in individual development: the goal of vironment; his major book, as a matter of fact, 3rd-millennium archaeology will be the acquisi- is a complex synthesis between the new theo- tion of full maturity! 680 SPECIAL SECTION

References Arqueologia Espacial 1. 1984-85. Coloquio sobre distribucion 1989. Costruzione di modelli e archeologia postprocessuale: y relaciones entre 10s asentamientos (vols. 1-6). Teruel: un percorso critico, in Istituto Italian0 di Preistorie e Cometa S.A. Protohistorie (ed.), Dottrina e metodologia della ricerca Arqueologia Espacial 2.1986-87. Coloquio sobre el microespacio preistorica: 301-14. Ferrara: S.A.T.E. (vols. 7-11). Teruel: Cometa S.A. 1992. 'Archeologia della complessiti' e calcolatori: un Arqueologia Espacial4. 1993-96. Procesos postdeposicionales percorso di sopravvivenza fra teorie del caos, 'attrattori (vols. 15-17). Teruel: Cometa S.A. strani', frattali e frattaglie del postmoderno, in M. Bernardi BARICH, B. 1977-82. I1 problema della teoria nell'archeologia (ed.), Archeolagio del paesaggio: 305-89. Firenze: preistorica e nelle scienze umane, Origini 11: 7-44. All'Insegna del Giglio. 1981. Prospettive in archeologia preistorica dopo la crisi DINCOL,A.M. & S. KANTMAN. 1969. Analitik arkeologi. Istanbul. del paradigma tradizionale, Antr'opologia contempora- Economia e organizzazione del territorio nelle societa flea 5: 127-32. preistoriche. 1982. Congress proceedings, Dialoghi di BINFORD,L.R. 1972. An archaeological perspective. New York Archeologia n.s. 4. (NY): Seminar Press. GUIDIA., 1987. The development of prehistoric archaeology CARANDINI,A. 1997. La nascita di Roma. Dei, lari, eroi e uomini in Italy, Acta Archaeologica 58: 237-47. all'alba di una civilta. Torino: Einaudi. 1996a. The Italian pluriverse: different approaches to pre- CARDARELLI,A. 1982. Gli studi sul territorio nell'archeologia historic archaeology, The European Archaeologist 5 (Au- britannica: alcuni recenti indirizzi di ricerca, in Economia gust): 5-8. e Organizzazione: 11-18. 1996b. Processual and post-processual trends in Italian ar- CAZZELLA,A. 1971. Review of Beaker pottery of Great Britain chaeology, in A. Bietti, A. Cazzella, I. Johnson & A. Voorrips and Ireland, Origini 5: 329-35. (ed.), Theoretical and methodological probiems (Colio- 1972. Considerazioni su alcuni aspeiti eneolitici dell'Italia quium 1, 13th International Congress of Prehistoric and meridionale e della Sicilia, Origin; 6: 171-299. Protohistoric Sciences): 29-36. Forli: A.B.A.C.O. CLARKE,D.L. 1984. Arqueologia analitica. Barcelona: Bellaterra LEONARDI,G. (ed.). 1992. Processiformafivi dello stratificazione S.A. archeologica. Padua: Imprimitur. CuOMo D1 CAPRIO,N. 1986. Onde di propagazione della New MAETZKE,G. 1981. Metodi e problemi dell'analisi delle fonti Archaeology in Italia, Rivista di Archeologia 10: 59-71. archeologiche, Archeologia medievale 8: 35-46. DE GLJIO,A. 1988-89. Analisi funzionale dei 'paesaggi di potere', TABACZYNSKY,S. 1976. Cultura e culture nella problematica della Origini 14: 447-78. ricerca archeologica, Archeologia medievale 3: 25-52.

The beginning of wisdom

M. PARKERPEARSON"

It is the best of times and it is the worst of In 1973 Clarke set out the notion that archae- times. On one hand, there are more resources ology had attained a state of critical self-con- and people involved in archaeology than ever sciousness, passing through consciousness (the before; there is considerable public and media naming and definition of the subject) and self- interest in the subject; and there have been consciousness (the largely technical revolution exciting developments in archaeologists' uses in procedures, classifications, principles and of social theory. On the other, competition is rules]. Critical self-consciousness is character- intense for locally scarce funding; most field ized by a metaphysical, philosophical and theo- research is constrained by non-archaeological retical revolution, concerned with explanation considerations; and fragmentation,insecurity and and interpretation, which ushers in an accepted disenchantment are rife. The split between theory body of general theory whilst, at the same time, and practice has certainly widened since David accelerating changes bring uncertainty, inse- Clarke's day, whilst theory has become not so much curity and general unrest. Some of my colleagues Clarke's unifier within the morass of empirical who knew David Clarke consider that he would detail but its own basis for division and often never have gone down the relativistic road of bitter disagreement within the pr0fession.l some 'post-processual' archaeological theory, had he survived. Yet some of his statements in 1 One manifestation of this is the regularity and vitriol with which British books on theory are pasted in North 1973 would seem to foresee and predict its ar- American reviews (and vice versa), verging on farce and rival; that observations and explanations are worthy of a study in its own right. all metaphysics-dependent, that 'origins' studies

* Department of Archaeology & Prehistory, University of Sheffield, Sheffield s10 ZTN, England. ANTIQUITY72 (1998): 680-86 DAVID CLARKE’S ‘ARCHAEOLOGY THE LOSS OF INNOCENCE’ (1973) 25 YEARS AFTER 681 might emerge as semantic snares and metaphysi- ology in the 1980s and 199Os, with the primacy cal mirages, that ‘colonial’ concepts would be of theory over detailed knowledge of, and skil- severely challenged, that differences in meta- ful attention to, archaeological material. It is physical ‘schools’ could not be judged as right not just in archaeology that we may hear univer- or wrong, and that meanings of time and space sity teachers bemoaning their students’ immer- are relative to observed phenomena. There has sion in current theoretical fashions at the expense been much theoretical water under the bridge of knowledge of basic source materials. since then: structuralist and symbolic archae- One of Clarke’s most marked contributions ology, post-structuralism, phenomenology, post- to British archaeology was his deployment of positivist philosophies of science, feminist and technical language. I remember finding Ana- gender theory, postmodernism and calls for lytical archaeology on the shelves of the pub- archaeology’s loss of political innocence. This lic library, whilst at school, and being baffled explosion of interest in social theory, just a small and impressed by its extraordinary prose style. and restricted part of Clarke’s idea of general Here was a flagship for a discipline to be taken theory, appears not to have been predicted by seriously, a discipline that was now far more him. However, in many ways, we can identify than a cross between gardening and antiquari- more closely with 1970s archaeology than that anism. For students of archaeology, this par- era could with the thinking of the 1950s. In ticular dialect of New Archaeology is currently retrospect, that earlier epistemological break just one language of theory that they must at- which saw the emergence of theoretically aware tempt to understand. With students constantly ‘New’ disciplines appears to have been more asking why theory must be written so opaquely profound, not just for archaeology but for the and complexly, our colleagues continue to de- social sciences generally. velop written styles that display their clever- ness with big words and obfuscatory phrases. Clarke’s dead wood Despite calls for plain speaking, some consider Despite Clarke’s extraordinary intellectual vi- that archaeology requires these two levels of sion, we may identify several areas where the discourse, one for the specialists and one for approach that he endorsed can be considered the broader public. It has been said that the to have failed. There is no unifying general most opaque writings are often produced by theory but a battleground of contested ap- the clearest speakers, a feature of Clarke’s own proaches. Indeed, archaeology has no theory inspirational teaching. We can forgive the use of its own, a point made some years ago of jargon in the 1960s as helping to legitimate (Flannery 19821, borrowing from and tapping the study of archaeology as a serious and ‘heavy’ into a broad field of social theory. Although profession, but how much is now mere linguistic archaeology’s disciplinary boundaries have en- posturing, as each generation of young research- croached into subjects such as anthropology, ers finds a vehicle to impress their peers and history and material-culture studies, the theo- advance their careers? After the heady days of retical writings of archaeologists are ignored theory for theory’s sake in the humanities, there or lambasted by theoreticians in other social seems to be a renewed interest in writing well sciences. David Clarke’s own attempts to bring and in communicating complex ideas through theoretical insights to archaeological analysis ordinary language. Despite claims that ideas were glorious failures. His social models for are tied to words and that the public must be the Glastonbury Iron Age lake village (Clarke ‘improved’ in their appreciation of difficult prose 1972; Coles & Minnitt 1995) and for Beaker (Tilley 1989), there is a strong groundswell of sequences and interaction (Clarke 1970; 1976; opinion that the jargon of theory is an exclu- Kinnes et al. 1991; Boast 1995; Case 1995) may sive and 6litist preoccupation, both amongst have been influential at the time, but they can practising archaeologists and amongst others be considered as profoundly erroneous today. such as the ‘fringe’who have long considered Clarke’s cavalier and misleading treatment of it just so much ‘intellectual wrist action’ the Glastonbury data, based on very poor fac- (Sullivan 1997). tual foundations, is revealed by Coles & Minnitt’s This is not to say that theory has outlived careful study (1995: 180-90) and seems to have its usefulness. Theory is always required in our prefigured the Zeitgeist of theoretical archae- search for explanation and understanding, oth- 682 SPECIAL SECTION erwise we adopt the implicit assumptions and than theory-independent, that truth and laws preconceptions of our own upbringings with- of culture are not universal but are contingent out any critical reflection. What we may see and temporary and that consequently academ- ditched as dead wood is the writing of impen- ics have to re-evaluate the basis for their au- etrable theoretical jargon as well as the pur- thority to make statements about the world. In suit of theory for theory’s sake. There are at such circumstances the loss of nerve among least two roads that we may take from here. western post-processual archaeologists, in be- One is the better integration of theory and prac- ing unable to say what happened in the past tice, both in interpreting the past and in ad- with any credibility, presents an unacceptable dressing archaeology’srole as :L cultural practice position for many archaeologists. If we can never in the present. Out of this will come genuine discover the truth, do archaeologists have the advances in our understanding of the past and right to continue doing archaeology? the present. The second road is the rejection of aspects of western social theory, on account Truth and relativism of its imperializing discourse and context, by There is considerable misunderstanding by post-colonial archaeologists who regard the broadly processualist archaeologists of post- application of ideas produced by 20th-century processual or ‘interpretative’ approaches to German, French and English philosophers and knowledge, which are often deemed to be pro- theoreticians as being ethnocentric, arbitrary moting a disabling relativism. The question of and alien (Andah 1995: 1051. truth has been a fundamental issue which di- Clarke’s view of archaeological theory was vides the positivists of the New Archaeology that it could be divided into five: predepositional from those whom they deride as various forms and depositional theory, postdepositional theory of relativist (Trigger 1989). Renfrew’s famous (both of these can be equated with Binford’s accusation that Shanks & Tilley’s approach middle range theory],retrieval theory (broadly (1987a; 1987b) advocates that ‘anything goes’ sampling theory), analytical theory and inter- was strongly denied but how are we to evalu- pretive theory. He describes both the latter and ate post-processual creations of ‘Past-U-Like’, predepositional theory as composing social images of the past constructed not on any par- theory. As such, social theory ‘. . . is but a small ticular evidence but so as to critique politically part of archaeological theory and even in this unsound practices in the present? restricted but important area the primitive terms Critics would see interpretive archaeology . . . of social theory. . . will require . . . trans- as no more than a relativist language game, with formation’ (1973: 17). In retrospect, he seems no grounds for evaluation other than rhetoric completely to have underestimated the way that and style: ‘telling it how you like it’. The social theory, within all the humanities, would postmodern wing of post-processual archaeol- come to dominate our analytical concerns rather ogy might be characterized as a rejection of all than remaining as a small element within his metanarratives and their claims to truth since notion of general theory. Clarke also seems to they impose continuity and closure on the gaps have thought that his three-part theory of con- and silences of past reality (Lyotard 1979).As cepts (metaphysics),theory of information (epis- a result, there is no legitimate foundation for temology) and theory of reasoning (philosophy believing in a unified, total history, either as of science) would develop separately and actuality or as subjective enterprise; unity, to- equally, so as to produce a general theory for tality and coherence can only be entertained archaeology. Yet the impact of social theory, ironically or strategically as heuristic princi- especially in its postmodernist form, has been ples. Rorty considers that we no longer need to deny universal understandings, to question transcendental grounds for our beliefs since the epistemological basis of knowledge and to social consensus, persuasion and pragmatic attack the conception of truth as envisaged in criticism are all that we are ever going to get the empiricism/positivism that Clarke espoused. (1982; 1991: 12-13; Jenkins 1995: 104, 125). These developments in social theory have According to Zagorin (1990: 2661, post- led to the recognition that supposedly ‘objec- modernism embodies ‘. . . a new depthlessness tive’ knowledge incorporates unacknowledged and superficiality; a culture fixated upon the subjectivities, that facts are theory-laden rather image; abandonment of truth as useless meta- DAVID CLARKE’S ‘ARCHAEOLOGY:THE LOSS OF INNOCENCE’ (1973) 25 YEARS AFTER 683 phorical baggage; disappearance of the autono- 1 Not everything goes. Not all accounts can mous individual and the death of the subject; be said to ‘stand for’ the past. There are loss of historicity and the past; disintegration ‘wrong’ histories which are recognizably of the time sense into a series of pure, unre- at odds with the presented material. lated presents; and the prevalence of pastiche 2 Unlike faith and dogma, genuine knowledge and imitation and cannibalization of past styles’. is always provisional, subject to revision in Criticism of postmodern or interpretive posi- the light of new information and evidence, tions also comes from within social anthropol- needing periodically to be restructured, fal- ogy (Gellner 1995) and literary criticism (Norris lible; open, therefore, to pluralist interpre- 1993). (Norris 1990: 44): tation, yet at the same time knowledge as far as we have managed to get. All claims to A depoliticized deconstructionism that reduces all knowledge are democratic by their nature, be- concepts to metaphors and all history to a play of cause they have to satisfy rules of consistency, ungrounded representations . . . depriving critical thought of competence to judge between good and external reference, evidence that is, in princi- bad arguments, and between reason and rhetoric. ple, accessible to all (Geras 1990: 162). 3 There are different orders of truth-claim, Yet these approaches have profoundly affected initially confused by Foucault (power/ our stance of supposed objectivity by opening knowledgehuth) as well as by the post- up the complexity of our subjective engagements modernists (Norris 1993: 302-3): between present and past. They have changed a) inward certainty, privileged access, and forever the ways that we do things: authentic revelation - the self-validating 1 the way that we view our situatedness in pseudo-truths of master narratives; writing the past (Hodder & Shanks 1995); b) truths subject to more rigorous standards 2 the realization that our accounts can never of critical accountability through openly replicate or fully recover the past but may accountable reasons, arguments, princi- only ever ‘stand for’ the past (Ricoeur 1989; ples and values. (The truths that dawn on Moore 1995); us as insight and understanding in our 3 the realization that we must challenge master daily archaeological practice which we narratives (‘. . . the more fundamental the search after and debate.) metaphysical controlling model, the less 4 We can decide between accounts in terms we are normally inclined to rethink it’ of which are more wrong (Moreland in (Clarke 1973: 14)); press a; in press b): 4 archaeology is both a representation of the a) Evidence is tangible, concrete and real. past and a representation of this repre- It constrains but does not determine what sentation’s construction; we are able to say, such that we can rec- 5 archaeology brings historical self-recogni- ognize when theories become implausi- tion through historicizations that construct ble (Hodder 1986: 96). multiple pasts, fashioning differential iden- b) The selection of evidence forces us to con- tity; front our theoretical perspectives that 6 potentially it permits oppressed groups to present people as constructing themselves interpret the past in terms to aid their through material culture, text and language. empowerment and liberation. Thus narratives are similarly constructed But how do we avoid the problem of total but are not necessarily false. relativism? Since archaeological interpretation c) The construction of ‘history’ is a com- can only ever ‘stand for’ the past then our dis- munity enterprise. It differs from propa- coveries are enmeshed with our constructions. ganda or fiction because of that For Rorty, truth is the name of whatever proves community’s tacit rules. Haskell (1990: to be good in the way of belief and good, too, 132) lists these as requirements to: for definite assignable reasons (pragmatic, lo- i.. abandon wishful thinking cal and particular, and intersubjective). Thus 11 assimilate bad news history/archaeology is truth-creating, not truth- iii discard pleasing interpretations that seeking. In conventional terms, there is no truth. cannot pass elementary tests of evidence So how do we deal with this? and logic 684 SPECIAL SECTION

iv suspend or bracket our own perceptions ologists have been more involved in commu- long enough to enter sympathetically into nicating discoveries and excavation findings the perspectives of rival thinkers. to the broader public. 5 Curiously, even certain postmodernists Intellectual theorizing is not the kind of ar- broadly agree (Derrida, cited in Norris chaeology that I enjoy writing about because, 1993: 300): for me, it is another example of addressing the profession from the lofty heights of ‘theory’, The value of truth is never contested in my writ- doling out opinions and laying down abstract ings . . . it should be possible to invoke rules of recommendations and criticisms. It is sympto- competence, criteria of discussion and of con- matic of a divided profession in which academic sensus, good faith, lucidity, rigour, criticism and kudos is given to the highly specialized writ- pedagogy. ers of theory whilst the substantial efforts of (Paul de Man 1978: viii, cited in Norris 1993: most archaeologists go largely unrewarded. Those who have struggled with the writing and 301): compilation of an excavation monograph will This does not mean that there can be a true read- know how such works are the hardest to pro- ing, but that no reading is conceivable in which duce, far more so than any book on theory, and the question of its truth or falsehood is not pri- yet (post)modern reputations can be built with- marily involved. out any sustained engagement with archaeologi- cal material that we have personally had a hand All of these concerns with the nature of truth, in acquiring. We might say that we have been narrative and subjectivity have been largely con- living since Clarke’s time in the era of the profes- tained within the humanities like guilty secrets sional archaeological critic. We need reminding not to be shared with the public at large. Some that Flannery’s golden Marshalltown was to be consider that any admission that we do not know awarded to the archaeologist who is in the field the truth will give the upper hand to the because they love it and not because they want creationists, UFOlogists, ley-liners and other to be famous, who doesn’t fatten up on someone groups who believe unshakably that they have else’s data or cut down colleagues to get ahead, privileged access to the truth. Yet archaeolo- and who knows the literature and respects the gists could benefit from a certain humility which generations who went before (Flannery 1982: 278). sacrifices not our expertise and knowledge but Shanks & Tilley’s important recognition of our pomposity and self-importance as high archaeology’s lost political innocence (198713: priests of the past, communicating truths from 213; 1989) has not everywhere been treated on high to the wider public. kindly; some claim that this is ‘dangerous non- sense’ and that Shanks & Tilley should leave Doing archaeology for the public their comfortable academic positions to work Clarke was not particularly concerned with ar- in places where they might actually make a chaeology’s wider audience, though he con- difference through their practical involvement cludes with a discussion of whether theory (Bettinger 1991: 147-8). Although many have would be welcomed by amateurs, historical been made radical by Shanks & Tilley’s prose, archaeologists and practical excavators (1973: those involved in many of the significant en- 18). Whereas earlier archaeologists such as gagements with political action during the 1980s Gordon Childe had been prepared to write for do not make reference to Shanks & Tilley’s post- the reading public in an accessible style that processualism. The conflicts over the reburial explained how archaeological knowledge was of human remains and the restitution of indig- created, Clarke seems to have been unconcerned enous property radicalized certain archaeolo- with archaeology’s public accountability and gists as a consequence of their personal reflexive relationship to its public that many involvements with indigenous groups and be- today consider essential. Clarke’s writings cre- cause of their colleagues unacceptable attitudes ated a sense of exclusivity within the profes- and actions rather than through their appre- sion. In the years since then, the mastery of ciation of ‘theory’ (Webb 1987; Zimmerman theory has become a requirement for many 1989). The same is also probably true for the university archaeologists whereas other archae- many archaeologists involved in indigenous DAVID CLARKE’S ‘ARCHAEOLOGY THE LOSS OF INNOCENCE’ (1973) 25 YEARS AFTER 685 land rights claims, in forensic excavations of At the local level we should be looking at recent war atrocities and in criticizing perni- the politics of archaeology within the local com- cious political regimes.2Although Marxism may munity. Currently our attentions seem to be have few of its credentials still intact, we should focused on the micro-politics and power struc- still heed the quotation on Marx’s tombstone: tures of the excavation trench, as in Hodder’s ‘Thephilosophers have only interpreted the world stimulating proposal for a post-processual ap- in various ways -the point, however, is to change proach to fieldwork (1997),although it can be it’. Some years ago in a public lecture in Lon- criticized for its flaws (Hassan 1997; but see don, the Russian archaeologist, V.I. Masson, ex- Chadwick 1998 for a measured critique). Whilst plained that archaeology was psychology - we there is value in attempting to change the world should be changing the way that people think. by beginning with ourselves and our practices, The first step has been taken, to attract wide outside observers may see such moves as rather public attention for archaeology locally, nation- self-indulgent and pretentious. A self-critical ally, and internationally. In Britain archaeol- field practice should perhaps start with the fact ogy is reported on at least weekly in the media. that archaeologists belong to larger communi- The next step is to show that archaeology is ties. In the field we impose ourselves on local not simply diverting and engaging, the most communities in many ways and are generally fun you can have with your trousers on, but appreciated because we respect the rights, views involves a greater quest for self-knowledge and sensibilities of the living even if we do not through knowledge of the past, an opportunity agree with them. We need to concentrate on to resite 2lst-century values, and to reorientate power and ideology, not so much within the our attitudes to the world. Archaeology pro- field team but in the greater world, on what vides long-term perspectives for a short-termist archaeology can do for society. society. It should make us appreciate ‘roots’ without leading to racial intolerance. It should Acknowledgements. Part of this paper derives from one encourage curiosity in the face of indifference given at a session on Marxism and Japanese archaeology at Bournemouth TAG, and I would like to thank Koji or fixed belief. It challenges the universal truths Mizoguchi for organizing the session. Staff and students and master narratives of world religions and in the archaeology department at Sheffield University have other forms of chauvinism. helped in many ways, notably John Barrett, Robin Dennell, Paul Halstead and especially John Moreland (who provided 2 In support of Shanks & Tilley, one can mention the ef- lots of help on the section about truth and relativity). The forts of their colleagues in, for example, campaigning for verse from which the title comes continues ‘a good under- rights of access to Stonehenge (Bender 1998). standing have all those who practise it.’ (Psalms 111.)

References ANDAH,B. 1995. European encumbrances to the development COLES,J.M. & S. MINNITT.1995. Industrious and fairly civilized: of relevant theory in African archaeology, in P.J. Ucko the Glastonburylakevillage. Taunton: Somerset Levels Project (ed.), Theory in archaeology: a world perspective: 96- & Somerset County Council Museums Service. 109. London: Routledge. DE MAN,P. 1978. Foreword, in C. Jacobs, The dissimulating BENDER,B. 1998. Stonehenge: making space. Oxford: Berg. harmony. Baltimore (MD]: Johns Hopkins University Press. BETTINGER,R.L. 1991. Hunter-gatherers: archaeological and FLANNERY,K.V. 1982. The golden Marshalltown: a parable for evolutionary theory. New York (NY]: Plenum Press. the archeology of the 1980s, American Anthropologist BOA~T,R. 1995. Fine pots, pure pots, beaker pots, in Kinnes & 84: 265-78. Varndell (ed.): 69-80. GELLNER.E. 1995. Interpretive anthropology, in Hodder et ul. CASE,H. 1995. Beakers: loosening a stereotype, in Kinnes & [ed.]: 48-50. Varndell [ed.): 55-67. GEKAS,N. 1990. Discourses of extremity: radical ethics and CHADWICK,A. 1998. Archaeology at the edge of chaos: further post-Marxist extravagances. London: Verso. towards reflexive excavation methodologies, Assemblage: HASKELL,T. 1990. Objectivity is not neutrality: rhetoric vs. prac- the Sheffield Graduate Journal of Archaeology 3 tice in Peter Novicks Thut noble dream, History and Theory 29: 129-57. http://www.shef.ac.uW-assem/3/3chad.htm CLARKE,D.L. 1968. Analytical archaeology. London: Methuen. HASSAN,F.A. 1997. Beyond the surface: comments on Hodder’s 1970. Beaker pottery ofGreat Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: ‘reflexive excavation methodology’, Antiquity 71: 1020- Cambridge University Press. 25. 1972. A provisional model of an Iron Age society and its HODDER,I. 1986. Reading the past: current approaches to in- settlement system, in D.L. Clarke (ed.), Models in archae- terpretation in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- ology: 801-69. London: Methuen. versity Press. 1973. Archaeology: the loss of innocence, Antiquity47: 6-18. 1997. ‘Always momentary, fluid and flexible’:towards a re- 1976. The Beaker network, in J.N. Lanting & J. van der Waals flexive excavation methodology, Antiquity 71: 691-700. (ed.), Glockenbechersymposion, Oberried 2 974: 459-76. HODDER.I. & M. SHANKS.1995. Processual, postprocessual and Bussum/Haarlem: Fibula-Van Dishoeck. interpretive archaeologies, in Hodder et al. [ed.): 3-29. 686 SPECIAL SECTION

HODDER,I., M. SHANKS, A. ALEXANDRI, V. BUCHLI,J. CARMAN,J. RICOEUR,P. 1989. Time and narrative 3. (Trans. K. McLaughlin LAST & G. LUCAS(ed.). 1995. Interpreting archaeology: & D. Pellauer.) Chicago (IL): Chicago University Press. finding meaning in the past. London: Routledge. RORTY,R. 1982. Consequences of pragmatism (essays: 1972- JENKINS, K. 1995. On ‘What is history?’:from Carr and Elton to 1980). Brighton: Harvester. Rorty and White. London: Routledge. 1991. Objectivity, relativism, and truth: philosophical pa- KINNES,I. & G. VARNDELL(ed.). 1995. ‘Unbaked urns ofrudefy pers 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. shape’: essays on British and Irish pottery for Ian SHANKS, M. & Tm,C. 1987a. Re-constructingarchaeology: fheoIy Longworth. Oxford: Oxbow. and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KINNES,I., A. GIBSON,J. AMBERS,M. LEESE& R. BOAST. 1991. 1987b. Social theoryand archaeology. Oxford: Polity Press. Radiocarbon dating and British beakers, Scottish Archaeo- 1989. Archaeology into the 1990s. Norwegian Archaeologi- logical Review 8: 35-68. cal Review 22: 1-12. LYOTARD,E 1979. La condition postmodeme: rapport sur sovoir. SULLIVAN,D.P. 1997. Review of M. Parker Pearson & C. Richards Paris: Les Editions de Minuit. (ed.),Architecture and order, The Ley Hunter 129: 40. MOORE,H. 1995. The problems of origins: poststructuralism TILLEY,C. 1989. Excavation as theatre, Antiquity 63: 275-80. and beyond, in Hodder et al. [ed.): 51-3. TRIGGER,B. 1989. Hyperrelativism, responsibility and the so- MORELAND,J. In press a. The Middle Ages, theory and post- cial sciences, Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthro- modernism, Acto Archaeologica fi8. pology 26: 776-97. In press b. Through the looking glass of possibilities: un- WEBB,S. 1987. Reburying Australian skeletons,Antiquity61: 292-6. derstanding the Middle Ages, Veroffentlichungen des ZAGORIN,P. 1990. Historiography and postmodernism: Instituts fur Reanenkunde des Mittelalters und der Fruhen reconsiderations, History and Theory 29: 263-74. Neuzeit. ZIMMERMAN,L. 1989. Made radical by my own: an archaeolo- NORRIS,C. 1990. What’s wrong with postmodernism: critical gist learns to accept reburial, in R. Layton (ed.), Conflict theory and the ends ofphilosophy. London: Harvester. in the archaeology of living traditions: 60-67. London: 1993. The truth about postmodernism. Oxford: Blackwell. Unwin Hyman.

Footnotes to Plato? Palaeolithic archaeology and innocence lost

ANTHONYSINCLAIR*

Trawling through old, dust-covered folders I tween methodologies, observations, concepts and found out that I first read ‘Archaeology: the loss information. Clarke points out in a series of small of innocence’ as a 2nd-year undergraduate for sections how theory-laden our interpretations of an essay on whether the New Archaeology was the past necessarily are, and how important it as theoretically sophisticated as it claimed to was to be aware of all aspects of our theoretical be. My notes of the time emphasize the begin- approaches. Each is inextricably tied to the other, ning and end of the article; suggesting that and the product has consequences for all aspects Clarke’s purpose was just to argue that of our interpretations of the past. Clarke’s idea of 1 there had been a sea-change in the nature a general theory of archaeology, and his charac- of archaeology leading to the development terization of the New Archaeology, were the prod- of a critically self-conscious entity in the uct of his reading of this interplay. New Archaeology; and Twenty-five years on, much has changed. 2 to discuss what a general theory of archae- There is a new environment and there are new ology might look like. consequences as a result of current and recent I was not alone in reading ’the loss of innocence’ work. Some of Clarke’s concerns are now out in this way, and indeed, most of the references of date: the existence of a New Archaeology is that I have found to it, note just these parts. an accepted historical event, the idea of a sin- In recent readings, however, it has struck me gle uniform structure of reasoning or explana- that, like a good sandwich, the bits of choice (and tion justly died soon after Clarke’s comments the parts that ought to be remembered) lie in the were published. The central core, however, re- middle - in the interplay that Clarke sees be- mains as provocative today as it was when first

* Department of Archaeology, University of Liverpool, William Hartley Building, Brownlow Street, Liverpool ~693BX, England. ANTIQUITY72 (1998): 686-90 DAVID CLARKE’S ‘ARCHAEOLOGY THE LOSS OF INNOCENCE’ (1973) 25 YEARS AFTER 687 published. The archaeology of the Palaeolithic faunal residues or bone assemblage composi- world is without doubt more explicitly theoreti- tion. Refinements in isotopic dating techniques cal than it was. A number of scholars have, like Clarke, dared to think out loud about what an (such as the use of accelerators in carbon-14 archaeology of the Palaeolithic might be: the and uranium series dating) and palaeomagnetic thoughts of Lewis Binford (1983: 1991) and es- dating techniques, as well as the use of new pecially Glynn Isaac (1989)stand out as the clas- dating techniques such as electron spin reso- sic and influential examples. But the prospect of nance, thermoluminesence and recently opti- a general theory of Palaeolithic archaeology still cal luminescence to name but a few, have both seems, tantalisingly, both within and yet just be- improved our dating accuracy and made it yond reach. Part of the reason for this is the tre- possible to provide dates for periods where mendous diversity of relationships between the previously none might have been. When these elements noted by Clarke, none of which can be new dates are coupled with refinements made easily held in control. Part of the reason also lies in the understanding of the timing and charac- in the problems that Palaeolithic archaeologists ter of the Pleistocene glacial/inter-glacial se- have encountered in defining hominid behaviour quence, especially through reference to the in the face of perceived dramatic changes through recent ice-core records from the Arctic, an in- time, within a field of study that likes to see it- creasingly sophisticated palaeoenvironmental self as a social science with its roots in the bio- framework must be matched with a greater logical and evolutionary sciences. number of dated deposits. As an exploration of this, and in the sincer- est expression of flattery, I thought that I might New observations follow Clarke’s original structure for the ‘loss New methodologies and fieldwork have com- of innocence’, although sticking more with the bined to alter fundamentally the interpretation sandwich filling. In the spirit of the original, of our earliest ancestors. For the distant past, references are more implicit than explicit. My new fieldwork finds and DNA studies have re- apologies to all those who feel that their work shaped the family tree: Ramapithecus is pruned is thus not given due credit. away, and with the new discoveries of Ardi- pithecus ramidus, and Australopithecus Ama- A new environment nensis, A. afarensis, A. Aegyptopithecus, Homo New methodologies ergaster and H. rudolfensis a series of new ho- Traditional methodologies of ‘Palaeolithic’ minid species have been found branches from analysis have been expanded. Lithic analysis which to hang. For the ‘recent’ past, Mitochon- now commonly includes not just typological drial DNA studies have located the origin and and technological observations but the study diaspora of anatomically modern humans of raw materials and use-wear traces, along with (AMH)in Africa, eliminating the idea of regional the refitting of excavated debitage. Despite ups origins for our species, still further reinforced and downs, microwear analysis steadily pro- by recent studies of Neanderthal Mt. DNA, vides useable information concerning the uses which show great differences in Mt. DNA be- of stone tools; raw material studies provide tween AMH and Neanderthals in Europe. Just patterns of calculated human movements in a as significantly, recent dating of established landscape, and refitting studies are linking to- species has dispelled the old notion of simple gether intra-site actions, in a way that statisti- succession in hominid species, to be replaced cal analyses could never hope to. Scanning by one in which there can be multiple species electron microscopes now make it possible to and possibly, indeed probably, contact between infer the use of lithic tools from other objects them. Between 2.5 and 1.5 million years BP there such as bone in the form of cut marks, often is now a plethora of hominid species in East helping to interrelate the co-presence of faunal and South Africa, and it is hard to say with and lithic materials in a reliable fashion. Faunal any real certainty whether we (Homo)were the analysis now includes not just the identifica- toolmakers, as opposed to another equally dex- tion of species, presumed hunted, but the in- terous species. The same abundance is visible terpretation of patterns of hunting, butchery, elsewhere. In Europe approximately 400,000 scavenging, marrow extraction and many other years BP there are likely to be multiple, if yet practices that leave traces in the condition of undifferentiated, species of archaic homo sapi- 688 SPECIAL SECTION ens, as present for example at the site of Atapuerca. individual decision-making and the multi-fac- In Western Europe between at least 40,000 and eted relationships between technology and 30,000 BP, and in other parts of Europe possibly subsistence decisions, encompassing the fac- much earlier, there is clear evidence for the con- tors of time and raw material availability, to temporaneity of Neanderthals and AMH; whilst name but two (Mithen 1991; Torrence 1989). the early dates of c. 1.8 million years BP for Homo There is, however, an even ’higher’ level of at Longuppo in China and in Indonesia, the early concepts that we use, that perhaps more fun- dating of hominids, presumably AMH, in Aus- damentally affect the way that we construct our tralia at least 80,000 years ago, and the very late subject. On the one hand we are interpreting dates of approximately 30,000 years BP for Homo the behavioural evidence of other, possibly very erectus in Java, suggests a complexity of homi- different, hominid species, whilst on the other nid relationships in this region that we can hardly hand we also have to interpret the evidence of begin to comprehend. our own species with all the self-knowledge The dating of parietal art itself in caves such that allows us. Both happen in the context of as Grotte Chauvet and the chemical analysis of social groups of which all but a very few have pigments have overthrown simple but widely held direct experience, and historical anthropolo- notions of artistic evolution, revealing that the gists of gatherer-hunters would argue that none first artists possessed sophisticated skills of ob- of us do. But where to draw this boundary of servation, shadowing, the use of colour and the conceptual difference? mixing of pigments from early on, even if recent When ‘the loss of innocence’ was written, observations on the use of hallucinogenic sub- that boundary was more often placed at the first stances suggest that some of these artists might appearance of the genus Homo -the toolmaker; not have been in their right minds when they it is now more often placed behind our own did so! Whilst the possible existence of exterior species, Homo sapiens sapiens -the symbolic parietal art such as in the C6a Valley in Portugal communicator. Whilst the eldest of the hominids indicates that the Upper Palaeolithic world might were usually conceived of as primates, our have been more decorative than we think. concepts, rooted in the ethnographic record, Programmes of extensive regional fieldwork, portrayed the earliest societies of Homo habilis both archaeological and ethnoarchaeological, as simple gatherer-hunters, loosely modelled have opened up new perspectives on our an- on the San, singing, dancing and sharing their cestors beyond the keyholes of vertical sections lives at home bases or central places. Later or single, open trenches to reveal patterns of hominids were complex, high-latitude hunter- landscape and raw material use coupled to gatherers based on societies such as the Inuit. artefactual discard. Moving the boundary of humanity later in time In many places we now see the hominid world leaves earlier hominids, bereft of extra-somatic, not as points of vertical, chronological depth, symbolic resources, caught up in an endless strug- placed on modern maps, but as variably sized gle of localized, social negotiation, whilst later landscapes of hominid activity with all the prob- social groups, material symbols of secure iden- lems of determining geographic (and social) scales tity visible to all, stride purposefully through broad and comparative chronology that this brings. landscapes of potential acquaintances. Both strategies can lead to an ‘us’ and ‘them’ New consequences perspective. Yet the variation in the archaeo- Theory of Concepts logical and anatomical record urges us to take Ecological (‘economic’) and evolutionary con- more than a binary approach: the former ho- cepts still form the backbone of our interpreta- minid species sharing aspects of our concep- tions of the archaeological record, much as they tual understanding of contemporary primate did 25 years ago in the work of Grahame Clark societies, the latter being inescapably human. and the developing ‘school’ of Eric Higgs, al- The challenge that we face is to find a new source though the form that these concepts take has of analogies or a series of concepts with which changed. Theoretical developments in evolu- to approach behaviour that is both ‘not-primate’ tionary biology now place greater emphasis upon and ‘not-modern-human’. These concepts must, individual decisions and strategies made within amongst other things, deal with the structure a specific context and this framework has re- and organization of social groups, the use and sulted in a concern with foraging strategies, control of landscape resources and, perhaps, DAVID CLARKE’S ‘ARCHAEOLOGY THE LOSS OF INNOCENCE’ (1973) 25 YEARS AFTER 689 some form of symbolic or transcendant com- as hand-axe morphology (Gowlett & Crompton munication that is not modern human in na- 1994) points to a consistency in manufactured ture. Whatever the case each species has been form that spans hundreds of thousands of years, subject to the contingencies of natural selec- beyond even the lifetime of species, let alone tion and all our concepts will be essentially individuals or social groups. What sort of behav- time-dependent and evolutionary in tenor. ioural models can account for this? And how can such a diversity of information be conceived to- Theory of Information gether? In simple terms, Palaeolithic, low-density, ar- chaeology lent itself to evolutionary and eco- General theory logical approaches that stressed the role of Much of Clarke’s thinking on the shape of a gen- behaviour and behavioural change at agenerational eral theory of archaeology stresses the importance or species level, whilst the materially rich ar- of recognizing how the archaeological record came chaeology of later periods, including perhaps into being. It is a general theory that is as de- the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, lent it- pendent on understanding sampling techniques self to interpretation in terms of social groups and the natural processes of site formation as it and cultural behaviour. Clarke remarked upon is upon interpreting human or hominid activity. this feature when considering the effects of a There can be little question that in the last 25 lower artefact density and the fact that new years great strides have been made in what Clarke dating techniques had produced a long chro- called predepositional, postdepositional and re- nology; it has been given more extended con- trieval theory. This is perhaps most obvious for sideration by Bailey (1984). Whilst there is the Early and Middle Pleistocene record, particu- obviously a difference between the archaeologi- larly in Africa where the opportunities for cal record of the earlier and later Palaeolithic, hominids as hunters or scavangers and the whole what has been surprising for Palaeolithic ar- process of the archaeological record as ‘fossils in chaeologists is how the archaeological evidence the making’ has been extensively researched, but from the same period can influence our con- similar issues have been adressed for the Upper cepts for time, space and population in dra- Pleistocene with regard to, for example, Nean- matically different ways. derthal burials or their subsistence economies, For example, lithic and faunal assemblages horn or the interpretation of Upper Palaeolithic set- Palaeolithic sites are not simply of lower den- tlement patterns. The strength of work in this area sity than their later counterparts; their presence might be taken as suggesting that the prospect of (or absence in the case of faunal remains) is criti- a general theory of archaeology was less distant cally dependent on the natural processes of ac- than Clarke saw it. cumulation resulting in time-averagedassemblages Clarke’s language of samples and traces con- spanning up to thousands of years in certain cases veys the initial impression that a general theory (Stern 1994).It is no longer possible to talk about of archaeology was a theory of layers, or a regular accumulations of bones and stones as living floors process where one theoretical activity led logi- or the product of contemporary actions without cally to the next, after the completion of the close supporting proof. Whilst this is obviously theoretical duty at hand. It also partly conveyed most acute for the earliest Palaeolithic assemblages, the impression that we needed to restore the it is still an evident and significant feature later record to what it had been at the moment of on. Rare, indeed, is the single occupation activ- discard before we begin the process of analy- ity area or site. Despite this time-averaged na- sis of past hominid activities. A sense of this ture of much of the record, the examination of can be seen in other areas of archaeological work, refitted lithic debitage or of the butchery patterns where there has been a search for that elusive for individual animals, from some of even the ‘Pompeii’ for all archaeological periods. But oldest sites such as Boxgrove (Roberts et aI. 1998) perhaps Clarke, himself, was hampered by his or Maastricht-Belvedere (Roebrooks 1988; own archaeological language, that of the lad- Schlanger 1994), reveals evidence for momen- der of influence. Clarke’s thinking was not so tarily discrete behavioural events with a tight simplistic. His depositional theory and inter- relative chronology that archaeologists of later pretive theory are surely part of the same. In- periods concerned with individual human agency deed, they are what most university courses might beg for. And again, other evidence, such would actually define as archaeological theory 690 SPECIAL SECTION per se. Clarke’s discussion of concepts and in- sists of a series of footnotes to Plato’ (1929). formation paints a more complex picture where Before you think that I am about to substitute theory is not a process of unravelling but a point Clarke for Plato, the relevance of Whitehead’s of tension: concepts and information acting like observation, I suggest, lies not in naming Plato, theoretical bungee ropes pulling the archaeolo- hut recognizing that we endlessly, though not gist in opposite directions. The position of equi- necessarily fruitlessly, refine answers to ques- librium is not still, but full of potential energy tions we have inherited from long ago. to pull in either direction. Whilst Clarke’s ‘loss of innocence’ is not regu- Clarke also mentioned that it was the region- larly quoted in Palaeolithic writings, Clarke’s alism, or the periodism of different archaeologies theoretical influence on his contemporaries is that stopped archaeologists from recognizing obvious, and in his defining of questions that the wood of their common theoretical endeav- we still struggle to answer. The optimism of our instead of the trees of their own speciality. Clarke’s approach is still invigorating. Lewis Whilst some common interests can be seen in, Binford, in Bones: ancient men and modern for example, the approach to sociality (cf. myths (a book dedicated to the memory of Conkey 1985; Gamble 1998), the composition Clarke) notes that his Nunamiut work was in- of fieldwork teams, conference-goers and the spired by Clarke’s call for new theoretical think- majority of references cited still reinforces the ing to drive forward the collection of new impression that Palaeolithic archaeology is a evidence, in this particular case the manner in real specialism. Indeed, at a time when gov- which faunal assemblages are produced. The ernments are forcing disciplines to define them- same is also particularly clear in the work of selves and what they teach in the spirit of Glynn Isaac and the clarity of his thinking on teaching-quality assessment, many Palaeolithic a range of subjects from the typology of lithic archaeologists might prefer to see their com- artefacts, to the spatial analysis of lithic and mon interests with zoologists, primatologists, faunal assemblages and the interpretation of climate-historians and geomorphologists. The the behaviour of early horninids and the fac- skills required to understand our evidence un- tors affecting site preservation, a range that fortunately now transcend the specialisms that parallels Clarke’sAnalytical archaeology. Clarity construct us as archaeologists. It is perhaps im- of thinking in understanding the social region- possible for anyone to be in control of archaeo- alism of Palaeolithic behaviour can be seen in logical theory in the way that Clarke perceived. the writings of Martin Wobst, Meg Conkey and, more recently, Clive Gamble, amongst others. Footnotes to Plato?? Of course we might look hack beyond Clarke The philosopher A.N. Whitehead remarked that to the writings of Grahame Glark or Gordon ‘the safest general characterisation of the Eu- Childe for our archaeological Plato. But that’s ropean philosophical tradition is that it con- another story.

References BAILEY,G.N. 1984. Concepts of timo in quaternary prehistory, horn in origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Annual Reviews of Anthropology 12: 165-92. MITHEN, S. 1990. Thoughtful foragers: a study of prehistoric BINFORD, L.R. 1Y78. Nunaniirit efhnoarchaeoiogy New York decision making. Camhridge: Cambridge University Press. (NY): Academic Press. RUEBROOKS,W. 1988. Excavations at Maastricht-Belvedere. 1981. Bones: ancient men and modern myths. New York Leiden: Springer-Verlag. Analectica Leidense 21. (NY): Academic Press. SCIILANGER.N. 1994. Mindful technology: unleashing the chofne 1983. Workingatarchaeology. New York (NY]: Academic Press. operatoire for an archaeology of mind, in C. Reiifrew & CONKEY,M. 1985. Ritual communication. social elaboration E. Zubrow (ed.), The ancient mind: elements of cogni- and the use of variable trajectories of Palaeolithic mate- tive archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. rial culture, in ]. Brown h T.D. Price led.), Complexhunter- STERN,N. 1994. The implications of time-averaging for recon- gatherers: 299-323. New York (NY) Academic Press. structing the land-use patterms of early tool-using GAMBLI.;,C. 1998. Palaeolithic society and the release from horninids, in J.S. Oliver & K.M. Stewart (et!.), Early ho- proximity: a network approach to intiinate relations, World niinid behavioural ecology: 89-106. New York (NY) Aca- Arc:haeolog,v 2 9 : 42 9-49. demic Press. GOWLEIT,J.A.J. & R.H. CROMPTON.1994. Kariandusi: Acheuliari TORKENCB,R. 1989. Re-tooling: towards a behavioural theory morphology and the question of allometrg, African Ar- of stone tool technology, in R. Torrance led.), Time, en- cfiaeologicul Ileview 12: 1-40, ergy and sfone tools: 79-87. Camhridge: Cambridge Uni- ISAAC. G. 1989. (Edited by Barbara Is versity Press. DAVID CLARKE’S ‘ARCHAEOLOGY THE LOSS OF INNOCENCE’ (1973) 25 YEARS AFTER 691 Archaeology: the loss of isolation

CHRISTOPHERTILLEY *

It is interesting to reflect that only nine years British archaeologist of his generation. One can separate David Clarke’s paper ‘Archaeology: the now react positively or negatively to various loss of innocence’ and the publication of Sym- aspects of his work but it remains fundamen- bolic and structural archaeology (Hodder 1982), tal to any consideration of the development of which may be taken to mark the beginning of a a disciplinary self-image. ‘post-processual’archaeology. Many of the ideas His work was consistently felt as threaten- put forward in that book were being discussed ing by many ‘traditional’ archaeologists spawn- and developed at Cambridge from around 1978. ing numerous criticisms that he wrote dry David’s paper, and its publication in ANTIQ- jargon-ridden texts that could be deemed largely UITY, may be taken as representing the high- irrelevant because they were difficult to un- water mark of ’new’ or processual archaeology derstand. He was complicating things too much. in the academy. Almost as soon as the ideas In principle archaeology ought to be a simple had been presented, and not really very well practice of recovering meaning from the past developed in the practice of doing archaeol- with the minimum of theory. David’s abiding ogy, they were under fire and being replaced. legacy has been to make theory and philoso- Yet David was still attacking ‘traditional’ ar- phy, and explication rather than description, chaeology, fighting for his own position in the the core of the discipline rather than being some- 1973 paper, and putting foward an agenda for how optional extras. Henceforth archaeology the future of archaeology. It was a manifesto had to be primarily an intellectual practice rather for future work. New Archaeology was then 11 than a set of technologies and methodologies. years old and had already achieved a certain It is clear that the stimulation for the ideas hegemony in Anglo-American archaeology, at that David advocated in the ‘loss of innocence’ least among younger academics more interested paper, and elsewhere in his work, were not in ideas than recovering and describing evi- primarily derived from reading the works of dence. In 1998 what is labelled ‘post-processual’ other archaeologists, but drawn from outside, archaeology differs fundamentally from many principally from his reading of work in the of the ideas presented in the Hodder volume positivist philosophy of science and structural- and it is doubtful whether anyone would still functionalist anthropology, sociology and ge- wish to follow David’s agenda or advocate early ography. It now seems somewhat ironic that ‘post-processual’ ideas. The pace of thinking he used these ideas to advocate strongly an ‘ar- has inexorably heated up. Both David’s paper chaeology is archaeology is archaeology’ posi- and the Hodder book are now primarily of his- tion in which the discipline should develop torical interest in the development of a disci- its own independent theoretical, conceptual and plinary consciousness in which archaeology is methodological structure tailored to the par- becoming increasingly self-reflexive, critically ticularities and peculiarities of archaeological interrogating its intellectual presuppositions, evidence. This theoretical structure was to be procedures and practices. applied top-down to inform an understanding David Clarke’s work was both visionary and of the past. What he did not seem to recognize constantly innovative. The ideas put foward is that there could be nothing distinctive about in the ‘loss of innocence’ paper, and in his other archaeological theory when it went beyond a publications, were subsequently adopted and concern with appropriate methodologies for adapted by many others. There can be no doubt excavation, fieldwork and conceptualization of that he was the most intellectually influential factors affecting the physical survival of archaeo-

* Department of Anthropology/Institute of Archaeology, University College London, Gower Street, London WClE ~BT. England. ANTIQUITY72 (1998):691-3 692 SPECIAL SECTION logical evidence, what he refers to as ‘pre’and Why should archaeologists think they can learn ‘post’ depositional and retrieval theory in the more from each other in their conferences, semi- ‘loss of innocence’ paper. He was, in part, re- nars, workshops, lectures and publications acting against the position put forward by some rather than by talking with outsiders (so-called historically minded ‘traditional’ archaeologists inter-disciplinary interactions being the excep- that archaeology can only really be a technol- tion rather than the norm)? Is this anything much ogy for extracting evidence from the past. In more than a kind of ancestor- and hero-wor- this it is distinctive. In all other respects, in ship (this consideration of a paper by David what Clarke terms general, analytical and in- Clarke being a typical example of the genre), terpretive theory, it shares common features with and part of a struggle for resources between all the other social and historical sciences. The competing disciplines in universities with ar- irony here is that the death of archaeology could tificial boundaries? Leaving to one side the only result from the conceit of distinctiveness. politics and pragmatism inevitably required for In this respect David’s paper itself betrays a the disciplinary survival of archaeology, is it startling innocence. How could an archaeologi- any longer intellectually necessary, or sufficent, cal theory of society or human action be pro- for us to be disciplined? David Clarke’s work duced that would not simultaneously be a social began a trend that has rapidly accelerated since, and anthropological theory? How could the in that what is, or is not, archaeology is now interpretation of meaning in past landscapes no longer very clear. We have a proliferation or artefacts, architectural forms etc. differ in of sub-disciplinary labels: contemporary archae- any radical sense from interpretative work in ology or modern material-culture studies, pre- relation to contemporary materials? Since the historic archaeology, historical archaeology, actions of persons in the past cannot be ob- colonial and post-colonial archaeology, anthro- served, and can only be inferred, archaeolo- pological archaeology, cognitive archaeology, gists certainly have more difficulty in landscape archaeology, gender archaeology etc. interpreting things than an anthropologist, but We also have a proliferation of theoretical ap- there is a shared general problem of Otherness proaches: empiricist, positivist, mathematical, and cultural distinctiveness. What David’s work structuralist, symbolic, hermeneutic, Marxist, has, in retrospect, stimulated is the intellec- phenomenological etc. Every archaeologist now tual position that archaeologists should them- works, to a greater or lesser extent, through the selves be engaged in the construction of social medium of a discipline whose hallmark is frag- theories rather than leaving it up to other dis- mentation rather than coherence, disunity rather ciplines and then simply scavenging and apply- than unity. This was the inevitable result of ing the ideas to explicate an archaeological data-set. David Clarke’s attempt to expand disciplinary Post David Clarke this parasitism and intellec- consciousness and dispel innocence. The trend tual laziness is simply no longer acceptable. will inevitably continue in an expansion of the Just as most of David’sideas were drawn from conceptual and material objects of archaeological reading texts outside the discipline of archae- discourse and inquiry. ology, the same is the case for ‘post-processual’ In the same year that the ‘loss of innocence’ works. Neither ‘new’ archaeology, or what has paper was published Edmund Leach (1973) happened since, could ever have been possi- argued, in a collection of papers edited by Colin ble without reading outside the discipline. The Renfrew, that ‘new’ archaeology was about 20 lesson (hardly novel) must be that reading only years out of date. Here, then, was a rather sad archaeology is bad for disciplinary health and and depressing time-warp in which a discipline promotes stagnation. This has same rather pro- was reinventing for itself the theoretical wheels found implications for teaching and learning: of a long-since discredited positivism and func- why, typically, should only archaeological texts tionalism in anthropology. The paper was, of take pride of place on undergraduate reading- course, a somewhat overstated polemic, in that lists? Why is teaching so much bound up with anthropology had hardly divested itself of this promoting disciplinary allegiance and assert- legacy. For example, the cultural ecology ap- ing distinctiveness? Why are courses in archaeo- proach of Vayda, Rappoport and others was very logical institutions labelled as being influential at the time, and had a direct influ- archaeological theory, rather than social theory? ence on David Clarke’s writings. DAVID CLARKE’S ‘ARCHAEOLOGY THE LOSS OF INNOCENCE’ (1973) 25 YEARS AFTER 693

In hindsight it is clear how selectively and of what is studied, and the theoretical ap- narrowly Clarke and others borrowed and trans- proaches taken, have resulted in a situation in formed ideas from a wider anthropological, which Leach’s accusation that the discipline sociological and philosophical literature. Only was profoundly naive in relation to wider sets a narrow Anglo-American branch of the logi- of ideas outside its own limited parameters and cal positivist philosophy of science was uti- interests, is now no longer possible to make. lized. A radically different and alternative David Clarke replaced the innocence of tradi- ‘Continental’ philosopy concerned with human tional archaeology with a different kind of in- action, meaning and intentionality was not nocence. The claim at the beginning of the ‘loss considered. Why were the anthropological of innocence’ paper is that ‘new’ archaeology works of LBvi-Strauss, Geertz, Turner, Douglas had ushered in an era of critical sef-conscious- and the growing body of work in structural- ness, as opposed to a prior phase of mere self- Marxist sociology and anthropology (all avail- consciousness. It had not. David’s achievement able in the late 1960s and early 1970s and was to make the discipline more self-conscious providing major sources of stimulation for a than ever before. In doing so he created the post-processual archaeology) ignored? What of conditions in which a Pandora’s box of theo- the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory? What ries and ideas could be opened, leading to the of Sartre and Merleau-Ponty? Their works, of achievement of what he wanted: a modern, course, did not fit into the required totalizing dynamic, constantly questioning, self-reflexive and authoritarian vision (for Clarke, ideally, all discipline. Pluralism, fragmentation and self- archaeologists should share in a single philo- reflection, a critical and questioning attitude, sophical, methodological and interpretative a permanent end of innocence, are part and structure) of what social science was supposed parcel of a post-modern world in which we can to be all about: too interpretative, too politi- no longer afford to take anything for granted. cal, too subjective, too disturbing, too uncer- A ‘post-modern’archaeology in 1998 is a truly tain: in short, all too human. Clarke’s utter, and contemporary discourse in a manner in which ultimately irrational, idealism in which the Clarke’s vision of a ‘new’ archaeology could social and material conditions of the produc- never be. It is both informed by, and can make tion of knowledge became ignored strangely a positive contribution to, wider debates in the became curiously presented as a form of ration- social and historical sciences about the mean- alist objective materialism in his work. The ing and significance of social relations, mate- vision of a scientific new archaeology that he rial forms, social reproduction and social presented could only be promoted out of in- transformation. A loss of innocence is dependent nocence of anything that might conflict with on the end of disciplinary isolation and, in this such a perspective. The contemporary prolif- sense, archaeology no longer continues to ex- eration and pluralism of archaeology in terms ist.

References HODDER,I. (ed.). 1982. Symbolic and structural archaeology, LEACH,E. 1973. Concluding address. in C. Renfrew (ed.), The Camhridge: Camhridge University Press. explanation of culture change: 761-71. London:Duckwoi.th. 694 SPECIAL SECTION ‘The loss of innocence’ in historical perspective

BRUCEG. TRIGGER”

The dual tasks of this paper are to examine David logical contexts, but ‘a new environment de- Clarke’s ideas about the development of archae- velops new materials and new methods with ology as they relate both to the era when ‘the .new consequences, which demand new phi- loss of innocence’was written and to what has losophies, new solutions and new perspectives’ happened since. In his treatment of the history (1973: 8-9). ‘Epistemological adaptation to the of archaeology offered in that essay, Clarke empirical content of. . . new observations’ (1973: subscribed to at least two of the key tenets of 1I) plays a major role in bringing about disci- the behaviourist and utilitarian approaches that plinary change. While Clarke saw new prob- dominated the social sciences in the 1960s: lems promoting theoretical diversification and neoevolutionism and ecological determinism. competition, and characterized this as a pro- Clarke viewed the development of archae- gressive tendency, he also believed that ‘in each ology as following a unilinear sequence of stages era archaeologists represent the temporary state from coixxiotzsness through self-consciousness of their disciplinary knowledge by a metaphysi- to critical self-consciousness. The first stage cal theory which presents appropriate ideals began with archaeology defining its subject of explanation and procedure’ (1973: 12). Such matter and what archaeologists do. As its data- adaptive behaviour transforms archaeology from base and the procedures required for studying one ‘level of practice’ to another. There is a close it became more elaborate, self-conscious archae- resemblance between Clarke’s explanation of ology emerged as a ‘series of divergent and self- the development of archaeology and the views referencing regional schools . . . with regionally that American neoevolutionists, such as Elman esteemed bodies of archaeological theory and Service, the young Marshall Sahlins and Lewis locally preferred forms of description, interpre- Binford held concerning cultural change in tation and explanation’ (Clarke 1973: 7). At the general. Clarke believed that other disciplines, stage of critical self-consciousness, regionalism such as biology, geology, geography and the was replaced by a conviction that ‘archaeolo- social sciences were transformed in analogous gists hold most of their problems in common ways by similar environmental factors. and share large areas of general theory within Clarke characterized the ‘revolution’ from a single discipline’ (1973: 7). Archaeology was consciousness to self-consciousness as mainly now defined by ‘the characteristic forms of its technical in nature and the one from self-con- reasoning, the intrinsic nature of its knowledge sciousness to critical self-consciousness as and information, and its competing theories of ‘largely a philosophical, metaphysical and theo- concepts and their relationships’ (1973: 7). retical one brought upon us by the consequences Clarke looked forward to a fourth (and ultimate?) of the first’ (1973: 7). He interpreted the latter phase of self-critical self-consciousncss, when changes as adaptive responses to alterations in the new archaeology would monitor and con- the social and technological environment of trol its own development. archaeology. The social changes included a vast Clarke maintained that these changes could increase in the numbers of archaeologists and be explained adaptationally. He defined an aca- in the resources for carrying out archaeologi- demic discipline as an adaptive system ‘related cal research. The technological changes were internally to its changing content and externally a revolution in the techniques used to anal yse to the spirit of the times’ (1973: 8).Past archaeo- archaeological data. Clarke provided a litany logical states were appropriate io past archaeo- of innovations, which summarized the exten-

* Department of Anthropology, McGill Llnivnrsity, 855 Shcrbrookc Street West. Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2T7 trigger8lcacock.lan.mcgill.ca ANTIQUITY72 (1998): 694-8 DAVID CLARKE’S ‘ARCHAEOLOGY THE LOSS OF INNOCENCE’ (1973) 25 YEARS AFTER 695 sive literature that British archaeologists in ologists, stages succeeded each other as a result particular had published on methodological of the adaptive superiority of particular innova- topics during the 1950s. Clarke identified two tions. The principal causes of change in archae- developments as exceeding all others in im- ology were demographic and technological. portance: computer methodology and isotope There was also no role in Clarke’s account chronology. Yet he stressed that in both cases for ongoing traditions, since better adapted the intellectual consequences arising from the systems of knowledge obliterated less well introduction of these new methodologies were adapted ones. Clarke’s account is notable for of much greater significance than were the not mentioning a single archaeologist by name, methodologies themselves. except Gordon Childe. This absence of bio- By enabling archaeologists to do explicitly graphical content seems to reflect more than what they had always claimed to do implic- the reticence of a younger scholar (even one as itly, computer analyses had revealed the erro- sensitive to the rules of British academic poli- neousness and worthlessness of many traditional tics as Clarke appears to have been) to get in- interpretations of archaeological data. Isotope volved in the dangerous game of praising and chronologies had indicated the hitherto unsus- criticizing the work of senior colleagues. For pected slowness with which changes had oc- Clarke, previous stages in the development of curred in prehistory and called into question archaeology, and hence the past work of indi- traditional culture-historical explanations of vidual archaeologists, were irrelevant except cultural change. Although Clarke did not specify as a prologue to the present. Because the present it, the hitherto assumed rapidity of cultural was shaped by its own functional constraints, change reflected a migrationist-diffusionist view the past played little, if any, specific role in of the past unchecked by any independent accounting for it. Clarke’s view of the develop- measurement of time. ment of archaeology, like American processual Clarke argued that the entire development archaeologists’ views about the development of archaeology from the stage of ‘noble inno- of culture, were profoundly anti-historical. cence’ (consciousness) to critical self-conscious- Clarke’s version of the history of archaeol- ness had occurred between the 1950s and the ogy ignored the series of overlapping, but 1970s, and hence during the working life-time roughly sequential, paradigms that had char- of many archaeologists. Yet elsewhere in his acterized the history of archaeology since the paper he referred to the ‘scientism and histori- mid 19th century. Evolutionary archaeology was cism’ of archaeology in the 1920s and 1930s, and replaced by culture-historical archaeology, still more recently in America, and to the impor- which in turn had been routed in the 1960s by tation of the ideas of Spengler, Toynbee,Ellsworth neoevolutionary archaeology. Each of these Huntington, and ‘the modified Marxism of Childe’ paradigms was characterized by its own dis- as general theory into archaeology. This suggests tinctive theoretical perspectives, analytical tech- that Clarke was aware that archaeology was not niques and social commitments. This refutes as devoid of theorizing prior to the 1960s as his Clarke’s claim that a ‘comprehensive archaeo- developmental scheme suggested. logical general theory’ became possible only Clarke clearly explained the development with the development of critical self-conscious of archaeology in evolutionary and adaptive archaeology. The history of archaeology also terms. He viewed the competitive individual- demonstrates that, because the specific under- ism of scholars, and their accompanying search standings of each period are what are trans- for enhanced employment, as a result of aca- formed by new understandings, changes in demic reputation, as encouraging innovation. archaeological interpretation and practice must He also believed that individual archaeologists be understood historically, rather than simply might choose to reject change in the short run, developmentally, as Clarke had assumed. Es- but could do so only at the cost of becoming ‘a tablished interpretations often survive unques- doomed race of disciplinary dinosaurs’ (1973: tioned long after the theoretical presuppositions 8). (In the 1970s the extinction of these rep- that gavc rise to them have been refuted or be- tiles was attributed to their evolutionary inferi- come unfashionable. Micro-migrations have ority to early mammals rather than to their being been retained, even as the larger migrations with the innocent victims of a cosmic calamity.) Yet, which they were thought to have been associ- whatever role was played by individual archae- ated have been abandoned (Trigger 1978). 696 SPECIAL SECTION

It has also been demonstrated that the evo- Willey, which in turn had been encouraged by lutionary and culture-historical approaches a growing interest in site plans that can be traced influenced archaeology around the world, even back to the large-scale clearances of prehistoric if contacts among archaeologists working in sites in the United States that had been spon- different regions were more restricted in the sored by lavish government funding of archaeo- past than they have been since World War 11. logical research in the 1930s. These approaches The universalization of archaeology that began signalled a growing interest in functional and in the 1950s occurred less because of changes in cross-cultural,analogical (and hence evolu- in archaeological theory than because isotopic tionary) interpretations of archaeological data. dating for the first time allowed sequences of By ignoring the long history of such dissent, cultural change in every part of the world to both Clarke and Binford attributed more origi- be correlated with each other as well as cali- nality to their own programmes than the his- brated calendrically. This perrnitted the rate as tory of the discipline warranted. well as the patterns of change to be compared What Clarke and Binford were opposing were, around the world, which in turn greatly encour- moreover, different specific regional variants aged the revival of a comparative, evolutionary of culture-historical archaeology. If Binford was perspective in the 1950s. It is surprising that the seeking to replace the 1950s’ diffusionized ver- leading role that Clarke’s mentor, Grahame Clark sion of the Midwestern Taxonomic Method that (1961),played in developing this crucial ‘world he had encountered in the person of James prehistory’ perspective went completely unre- Griffin at the University of Michigan, Clarke corded in this paper. It is also significant that, was working to transcend the British culture- despite the ever more rapid diffusion of new tech- history being promoted by archaeologists such niques and theoretical orientations, regional styles as Glyn Daniel, Christopher and Jacquetta of doing archaeology are no less marked today Hawkes, Stuart Piggott and Mortimer Wheeler. than they were in the past. They invoked the philosophical idealism of the Clarke and Binford, like many other young philosopher-archaeologist Robin Collingwood, archaeologists in the 1950s and 1960s, myself but did not apply it systematically to their work. included, were dissatisfied with the culture- Instead they embraced the distinction that his- historical approach. Its idealist epistemology, torians of the von Ranke (‘show it as it really almost exclusive concern with homologies (simi- was’) school drew between facts, which were larities resulting from historical connections) treated as constituting the basis and ever-ex- rather than analogies (similarities resulting from panding core of archaeology, and interpreta- independent development) and invocation of tions, which were regarded as provisional diffusion and migration as the principal expla- personal opinions. These archaeologists saw nations of culture change seemed old-fashioned their discipline as a way of extending history by comparison with the functionalist and be- into the remote past. A strong emphasis was haviourist orientations of the other social sci- laid on creating narratives and there was a ten- ences and prevented archaeologists from dency to distinguish between prehistory, which engaging in worthwhile debates about the na- was equated with the synthesis of archaeological ture of change with other disciplines. data, and archaeology, which was concerned Yet, in condemning the inadequacies of cul- with the recovery and publication of such data. ture-historical archaeology, both Clarke and Curiously, although it was identified as merely Binford ignored the antiquity of this dissatis- an expression of opinion, prehistory was re- faction and of the search for alternative ap- garded as a nobler calling, and one that de- proaches. The latter had expressed itself in the manded more academic training than did economic explanations that Childe had pro- archaeology. At the same time, the belief that posed in the 1920s and 1930s, after explicitly interpretation was inevitably mere opinion stating his reservations about culiure-histori- encouraged flights of fantasy that Clarke rightly cal explanations (Childe 1930: 240-47); in the protested turned archaeology into ‘anirrespon- ecological orientation of Grahame Clark and a sible art form’ (1973: 16). growing number of American archaeologists, Clarke’s critique of British culture-history was including Julian Steward (also an anthropolo- devastating. He argued that, by confusing ar- gist) and Joseph Caldwell; and the settlement chaeological time with historical time, culture- archaeology approach initiated by Gordon historical archaeologists had promoted a form DAVID CLARKE’S ‘ARCHAEOLOGY THE LOSS OF INNOCENCE’ (1973) 25 YEARS AFTER 697 of diffusionary-migrationary catastrophism Curiously, while Clarke’s explanation of analogous to the theories of 18th-centurygeol- change in archaeology conformed closely to ogy. The new, slower time-scales revealed by American New Archaeology’s explanation of isotopic dating made it ‘exceedingly doubtful’ change in general, he did not extend this ex- that archaeologists could continue to use the planation to sociocultural change. He was more old stock of historical models in a direct fash- aware than was Binford of the complexity both ion. He denounced (without naming him) FranGois of the archaeological record and of the prob- Bordes’attribution of variation in Mousterian stone lems involved in explaining cultural change. tool assemblages to tribal differences enduring Especially in what turned out to be the final for over 30,000 years as wholly unacceptable since stage of his career, when he was writing mainly ‘political, historical and ethnic entities and proc- about specific aspects of European prehistory, esses of these kinds cannot yet he perceived at Clarke displayed considerable appreciation of that scale in that data, even if they then existed’ the role played by historical traditions, even (1973: 10). He thus aligned himself with Lewis though he viewed such traditions as being con- and Sally Binford’s critique of Bordes without stantly remodelled to varying degrees by adap- explicitly endorsing their alternative ecological tive or expedient behaviour. He stressed that explanation. More positively, Clarke argued for ‘the explanation of complex events in sophis- the need to construct a body of theory that could ticated systems is an especially important and discipline every stage in archaeological interpre- ill-understood area’ (1973: 15). Perhaps his tation and rescue archaeology from being noth- routine exposure to historians and to the ar- ing more than an exercise in creative fantasy. He chaeology of the historically documented Eu- also implicitly rejected the distinction between ropean past made him more aware of the* prehistory and archaeology. complexity of change than Binford had been Clarke’s solutions to the problems of culture- made by his brief exposure to colonial Am- historical archaeology, no less than his critiques, erindian history. Far from avoiding documen- reflected the specific nature of British archae- tary history, Clarke believed that text-aided ology. Binford, who was trained in the Ameri- contexts were a fertile source of ‘vital experi- can anthropological tradition, and in many ways ments in which purely archaeological data was more influenced by evolutionary anthro- may be controlled by documentary data’ (1973: pologists, such as Leslie White, than by archae- 18). ologists, sought to integrate archaeology more Clarke also rejected in this essay and else- closely into anthropology. He shared an old and where (Clarke 1972) the idea that there was a widespread opinion that archaeology had to he universal form of archaeological explanation a part of anthropology, if it was to amount to that was appropriate for all contexts. The cross- anything. To accomplish this, he proposed to cultural recurrence of a particular house-plan use generalizations established by the study of might require a totally different sort of expla- living cultures to infer human behaviour from nation from the collapse of a particular ancient archaeological data and a strict adherence to civilization. While, in Clarke’s opinion, New ecological determinism and neoevolutionism Archaeology was an interdependent set of new to account for change. Clarke, by contrast, re- methods, observations, paradigms, philosophies mained more narrowly committed to archae- and ideologies, its creativity lay in the ques- ology as a discipline, even if, in his opinion, it tions it posed rather than in the answers it pro- had originated as ‘an arbitrary hut common[ly vided. His description of explanations that rely accepted] partition of reality’ (1973: 6). Rather on multiple re-invention as ‘currently fashion- than privileging ethnoarchaeology as a source able autonomous “spontaneous generation” of insight, Clarke advocated, as he had already explanations’ (1973: 13) can he read as a spe- done in Analytical archaeology (1968),the com- cific rejection of the neoevolutionary bias of petitive use of paradigms focusing on the American New Archaeology. Finally, his claim morphological, anthropological, ecological and that much of archaeology treats ‘relationships geographical aspects of archaeological data. . , . for which. . . patterns . . . nowhere survive Clarke’s views were, in fact, strongly influenced within the sample of recent human behaviour’ by the New Geography, especially as its approaches (1973: 17) reads as a specific limitation of the were being applied to human geography by an- potential role that ethnoarchaeology might play other Cambridge academic, Peter Haggett. in the interpretation of archaeological data. 698 SPECIAL SECTION

Clarke’s resistance to Eric Higgs’ efforts to behaviour from archaeological data being rec- establish ‘ecofacts’ as the primary data of ar- ognized as the major ongoing challenge to ar- chaeology led him to reassert, in what he termed chaeology. This was a challenge that Binford a Neo-Montelian fashion, the value of artefacts attempted to meet with his elaboration of mid- for understanding past human behaviour dle-range theory. These developments moved (Sherratt 1979: 199-201). In Analytical archae- American archaeology closer to Clarke’s defi- ology, he had suggested that archaeology might nition of archaeology as ‘the discipline with become the nucleus of a science of material the theory and practice for the recovery of culture. Clarke’s focus on the unique qualities, unobservable hominid behaviour patterns from limitations and importance of material culture indirect traces in bad samples’ (1973: 17). as objects of understanding was likewise dif- More recently ecological determinism has ferent from American New Archaeology’s treat- been largely abandoned, neoevolutionism has ment of material culture almost exclusively as waned, and the importance of historical tradi- a basis for inferring past human behaviour. tions in shaping human behaviour again has Clarke maintained that theory is involved been recognized. Darwinian selectionism, vari- in everything an archaeologist does and that ous social theories including Marxism, and only a small part of it can be reduced to social idealist understandings of human behaviour are theory. He elaborated this concept with his now all competing for attention. The vast majority classic account of the interconnected levels of of these theories recognize the importance of theory that are latent in any archaeological in- accounting for homologies as well as analogies terpretation: predepositional, depositional, and recognize that all human behaviour is cul- postdepositional, retrieval, analytical and in- turally mediated (Trigger 1998). As a result, terpretive. These, together with metaphysical modern archaeology seems more like what theory (defined as dealing with the most gen- Clarke envisaged than what Binford did, al- eral concepts archaeologists use), epistemologi- though more culture-historical ideas are being cal theory (dealing with archaeological incorporated into the new synthesis than ei- information), and logical theory (dealing with ther of these ‘New Archaeologists’ would have correct reasoning as it applies specifically to anticipated in the early 1970s. archaeology) would theorize the entire disci- In America, Clarke is remembered, as far as pline. While American New Archaeology ex- he is remembered at all, as a British follower hibited an early interest in sampling (retrieval or fellow-traveller of American New Archae- theory), its main concerns were with inferring ology - a view reinforced by Clarke’s use of behaviour from archaeological data (interpre- the term New Archaeology to label his posi- tive theory) and explaining such behaviour tion, even though he insisted that there were (predepositional theory). Clarke’s view, many kinds of New Archaeology. This inter- grounded in the importance that he accorded pretation grossly underestimates the independ- to archaeological data, generated a more com- ence and originality of Clarke’s views. If Clarke prehensive and inductive view of theory. was not wholly successful or accurate in con- How have Clarke’s ideas fared since 1973? textualizing his position in relation to past or During the 1970s American New Archaeology contemporary work, he offered a more presci- began to pay more attention to the specific char- ent and rounded anticipation of the future than acteristics of archaeological data. This was did any other of his contemporaries. manifested in the growing emphasis on tapho- nomy in Michael Schiffer’s Behavioral arche- Acknowledgement. This comment was drafted while I was ology (1976) and in the inferring of human on sabbatical leave from McGill University.

References CHILDE,V.G. 1930. The Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge SCHIFFER,M.B. 1976. Behavioral archeology. Ncw York (NY]: University Press. Academic Press. CLARK,J.G.D. 1961. World prehistory: an outline. Cambridge: SHERRATT,A.G. 1979. Problems in European prehistory, in N. Cambridge University Press. Hammond et al. (ed.), Analytical archaeologist: collected CLARKE,D.L. 1968. Analytical archaeology. London: Methuen. papers ofDcrvidL. Clarke:193-206. London: Academic Press. 1972. Review of Patty Jo Watson, Steven A. LeBlanc &Charles TRIGGER,B.G. 1978. The strategy of Iroquoian prehistory, in L. Redman: Explanation in archaeology: an explicitly R.C. Dunnell & E.S. Hall, Jr (ed.), Archaeological essays scientifc approach (19711, Antiquity 46: 237-9. in honor ofIrving B. Rouse: 275-310. The Hague: Mouton. 1973. Archaeology: the loss of innocence, Antiquity 47: 6- 1998. Archaeology and epistemology: dialoguing across the Dar- 18. winian chasm, American Journal ofArchaeology 102: 1-34. DAVID CLARKE’S ‘ARCHAEOLOGY THE LOSS OF INNOCENCE’ (1973) 25 YEARS AFTER 699 Hindsight and foresight: preserving the past for the future

ANDREWSHERRATT”

ANTIQUITYasked Andrew Sherratt, who had been a student of David Clarke at Peterhouse, Cambridge in the late 1960s and early ’~OS,to give his reaction to the foregoing papers, in the light of his recollections of the time.

A historical discipline must be true to its sub- a penetrating observation caught in a crackling ject-matter: each phase must be considered in phrase. The ‘loss of innocence’ paper is full of its own terms, not as the harbinger of what came them: its form is a sustained metaphor, its con- afterwards. Otherwise we fall prey to what tent replete with snappy one-liners referring ob- Herbert Butterfield’ perceptively stigmatized liquely to the cherished ideas of opposing schools as the ‘Whig view of history’: the hindsight, of thought. Consider, for instance, his descrip- and the moral self-righteousness, of the self- tion of academic specialization (Clarke 1973: 6): proclaimed progressive. David Clarke wrote at ‘. . . each expert has a specialist territory such a critical period in the development of archae- that criticisms of territorial observations are treated ology as we know it today, at the transition from as attacks on personalities. This gradually becomes what was largely a middle-class recreation to a seriously counterproductive vestige of a formerly a widely taught university subject with the valuable disciplinary adaptation by means of potential for transforming our understanding which authorities mutually repel one another into of all periods of the human past (and hence dispersed territories . . .’. Old Cambridge hands also the human present). He lived long enough will recognize this as a caricature of Eric Higgs to capture a vision of what that understanding and the ‘Bone Room’ (and in particular their de- might comprehend, but not long enough to fensive reaction to David’s foray into palaeo- experience the fragmentation of cultural re- economy which was to appear in 1976 as sponses to globalization and the profound so- Mesolithic Europe:the economic basis),described cial transformation which has accompanied its in terms of their canonical model of human be- unfolding. His writings offer a brilliant char- haviour - a thinly-disguised adaptation of V.C. acterization of a world now in many respects Wynne-Edwards’ famous analysis of the mating radically different, and a prescription which habits of the grouse (Animal dispersion in rela- is worth preserving for an equally different future tion to social behoviour, 1962)! David was both (cJ Shennan 1989). It is important, therefore, subtle, and possessed of a sense of fun: qualities to understand the meaning which the artefact all too rare in many areas of archaeology, then had for its maker - the text for its author - and now. and not to imagine that its value is exhausted Although the above example is something by its congruence with present-day concerns. of a period-piece, some of his targets are still Those of us who knew David remember his represented in contemporary thought. ‘It is sense of humour as a predominant character- amusing to note that just as “invasion” expla- istic, and it is important to read his writings nations were conditioned by the metaphysics with this quality in mind. ‘The use of scien- of the short chronologies, and produced a move tific techniques in archaeology no more makes towards “autonomous” explanations [Renfrew archaeology a science than a man with a wooden 19691, so “autonomous” explanations become leg becomes a tree’ was a fairly typical sample of meaningless amongst networked communities. Indeed the capacity of archaeology to reinvent 1 Master of Peterhouse from 1955 to 1968. for itself archaic explanation structures long aban-

* Ashmolean Museum, LJniversity of Oxford, Oxford 0x1 2~11,England. andrew.sherratt~linacre.oxford.at:.uk ANTIQTJITY72 (1998): 699-702 700 SPECIAL SECTION doned in other disciplines is remarkable - in- esting that so many of the commentators as- vasion “catastrophism” can be joined by the cur- sume that David’s account was set in a stadial, rently fashionable autonomous “spontaneous progressive metaphysic in which each stage generation” explanations and that mysterious formed an inevitable advance over its predeces- “phlogiston” civilization [Renfrew 19721.’ Dare sor: it reads to me much more as a description one even attribute premonition to his generali- of how each archaeology is of its time, and can zation that ‘disreputable old battles, long fought only be understood in its context - ‘precipi- and long decided in other disciplines, are im- tate, unplanned and unfinished’ - and will ported into archaeology to be needlessly refought therefore ‘move to new languages and new dis- with fresh bloodletting’, which might describe a ciplinary systems not only to answer former fair proportion of the TAG sessions which I have questions which could not be answered but also attended since the first one in 1978? to abandon former questions and answers which It would be a mistake, therefore, to see ‘the had no meaning’. Indeed, a principal contrast loss of innocence’ as the equivalent to Gordon between David and his commentators seems Childe’s Valediction: a retrospective considera- to lie precisely in his flexible appreciation of tion of his life’s work before the author chose the relativity of archaeological thought to its to bring it to an end. It is much better to regard socio-cultural circumstances, and his aware- it as a puckish sketch of the contemporary scene, ness of the evanescence of particular attitudes. by an archaeologist then younger than almost ‘By the same proposition we can predict the all of the commentators assembled by ANTIQ- transience of the New Archaeology itself - but UITY 25 years afterwards (though already au- we should not confuse transience with insig- thor both of a standard two-volume work on nificance.’ Post-processualists might say the British Bell-beakers, and of the first systematic same of their own movement, though they rarely monograph on archaeological methodology, do - perhaps why I suspect that many advo- before he had even been appointed to a full cates of post-processualism lack something of lecturership).lIt is a thorough misunderstand- his sense of per~pective.~ ing to seek typological attributions of literal David was not writing a comprehensive in- readings of the text, as if a leaden translation7 tellectual history of the subject (pace Bruce could capture the quicksilver thoughts behind Trigger); nor was he setting in concrete a pre- it, and the often metaphorical and ironic modes scription for the rest of time (paceChris Tilley): of expression it employed; and it is somewhat he was pointing out the value of using devel- self-serving to portray David Clarke as the oping methodologies and technologies, and of prodromos to any future messiah. It is inter- treating archaeology as a comprehensive project with many common problems - each, at the 2 It is hard to blame David for what Mike Parker Pearson time, seen as essentially unique (Isaac 1979). characterizes as ‘the primacy of theory over detailed knowl- That archaeology is now largely unified at this edge of archaeological material’ - in a paragraph which level, and much of what he wrote now com- refers explicitly to his work on Bell-beakers - without monplace, is a measure of the degree to which recollecting that David travelled the length of the British its message has been absorbed (however radi- Isles on his motorbike to draw almost every known beaker for the corpus which remains the most comprehensive cal it was for the readers of this journal in 1973 collection of this material! [This included beakers in pri- - see the outraged responses to it in ANTIQ- vate ownership: David roared up to the front of one stately UITY 47: 93-5,174-5 thoughnote Hawkes’sym- home to he answered by the butler, with the information pathy at 176-8). As Guidi notes, it is now part that ‘His Lordship is fishing the evening rise, Sir’.) 3 Or rather mistranslation: by taking his metaphors liter- of the everyday agenda of practical archaeol- ally, and completely missing the irony of his remarks, Trigger ogy -though David’s formulation is still worth manages to make David subscribe to ‘neoevolutionism and reading for its insights and metaphors (like his ecological determinism’, to suggest that he ‘viewed the description of the archaeological record as a development of archaeology as following a linear sequence’, that he defined an academic discipline as ‘an adaptive sys- sparse suspension of information particles tem’, and that his view of the development of archaeology rather than a Gruyere cheese). In this sense, was ‘profoundly anti-historical’! David espoused none of archaeology is a much more sophisticated dis- these viewpoints, and it is important not to accommodate him to the attitudes of American New Archaeology, many 4 Or, indeed, his sense of chronology: Chris Tilley may date of which (like Hempelian positivism) he roundly opposed the onset of revisionism to 1978,hut his own hard-line Binfordian (see Shennan 1989). [This applies to lilley’s reference to essay rIn this study culture is viewed &on1 a systemic: perspec- David’s supposed positivism, too.) tive. . .’) appeared in print in 1979 (Tilley 1979: 1). DAVID CLARKE’S ‘ARCHAEOLOGY THE LOSS OF INNOCENCE’ (1973) 25 YEARS AFTER 701 cipline (hard as it is to use that word in a posi- is both), is immaterial, so long as all of the rel- tive sense since Foucault) than it then was; what evant disciplines are well represented in the is now at issue are the discourses in which its discussion. What is important is that socio- practitioners should participate, and the nec- cultural theory should have an input from ar- essarily political decisions which that involves. chaeology as much as from contemporary social One of these is Mike Parker Pearson’s question thought, if it is to deserve its name. I fully agree of whether these discourses should be ‘aca- that archaeology’s institutional and intellectual demic’ or ‘public’; though why - other than ghettoization is deleterious to scholarship -but as a matter of personal and institutional time- this is bad for the social and text-based histori- budgeting - should these be considered as cal disciplines as much as it is for archaeology. mutually exclusiveF All of the new discursive The resultant theory should be no less ‘archaeo- participants of recent years have brought fresh logical’ for simultaneously being ‘social’. issues to the attention of academic archaeologists, Several of the commentators stress archae- who alone have the time and the responsibility ology’s contemporary fragmentation, citing a to try and make sense of them; here the most sin- proliferation of theoretical approaches; though ister threat is the model of university education none quotes David’s own anticipation of this propounded by politicians, consisting of the ‘de- situation: ‘A temporary new sectarianism may livery’ of a ‘curriculum’, which threatens criti- be the price for the dissolution of the old dis- cal thought of any kind. Emphasizing our disunity ciplinary fabric, but this anarchic exploitation is not the best way to respond, and perhaps soli- of freedom is symptomatic of the rethinking of darity may emerge under pressure. primary issues’. I believe that he would have What I do not understand about Chris Tilley’s relished these debates, and fully participated piece is his insistence that ‘there [can]be nothing - indeed, that he would have modified their distinctive about archaeological theory when course in a significant way. While not arguing it [goes] beyond a concern with appropriate against change, he might well have argued methodologies for excavation, fieldwork and against change for change’s sake - the desire conceptualization of factors affecting the physi- to invert everything that had gone before, and cal survival of archaeological evidence’. Can all too often to replace logical positivism with the past only be interpreted in terms of the illogical negativism. While he would have lost present? Not much hope for understanding the none of the excitement, he might well have Mousterian problem, then, since Neanderthals provided a greater measure of continuity. Peri- are all long dead. Has the past no properties ods of self-doubt have always alternated with except Otherness and cultural distinctiveness? times of optimistic certainty; but neither atti- (How about duration?) Does archaeology do tude is a permanent prescription. While his work nothing except replicate studies of otherwise will remain forever of its time, it will not al- observable behaviour, under conditions of poor ways be seen from the peculiar perspective of preservation? (What happened to historical postmodernism. Matthew Arnold’s poem ‘The uniqueness?) Surely not. Of course ‘an archaeo- Scholar Gypsy’ (1853) describes a scholar whose logical theory of society or human action’ is vision remained fresh, precisely because it had ‘simultaneously a social and anthropological not been accommodated to contemporary con- theory’: but it is a social theory informed by a cerns; and it might be read as a plea not to see unique source of information, and one scarcely our predecessors only in the light of what seems represented in contemporary works which pass most pressing today, but to preserve the individu- as ‘social theory’. Whether future theories should ality of their message so that its appeal remains be labelled ‘archaeological’ (because this is a undiluted. It seems an appropriate epitaph: primary source of evidence of human practices since the emergence of the genus Homo) or ‘so- Thou hadst one aim, one business, one desire! cial’ or ‘cultural’ (since all human behaviour Else wert thou long since numbered with the dead - Else hadst thou spent, like other men, their fire. For early didst thou leave the world, with powers 5 Tim Tdylor’s Prehistoiy ofsex(l996) seems to have reached both markets: and, personally, I have found non-specialist Fresh, undiverted to the world without, audiences as receptive as academic ones on questions such Firm to their mark, not spent on other things. as the use of psychotropic substances in prehistory, in the context of phenomena such as shamanism and ‘The loss of innocence’ is a sparking essay: read archaeoastronomy. see, for instance, Devereux (1997). and enjoy it for what it is. 702 SPECIAL SECTION

References BUTTERFIELD,H. 1931. The Whig interpretation ofhistory. Lon- to papers by D.L. Clarke, including Clarke (1973)],in Clarke don: Bell. (1979): 15-20. CHILDE,V.G. 1958. Valediction, Bulletin of the Institute of Ar- FZNPKEW,A.C. 1969. The autonomy of the south-east European Cop- choeology, University of London 1: 1-8. per Age, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 35: 12-47. CLARKE,D.L. 1973. Archaeology: the loss of innocence, Antiq- 1972. The emergence of civilisation: the Cyclades and the uity 47: 6-18. (Reprinted in Clarke 1979: 83-104.) Aegean in the third millennium BC. London: Methuen. 1976. Mesolithic Europe: the economic basis, in G. de G. SHENNAN,S.J. 1989. Archaeology as archaeology or anthropol- Sieveking, I.W. Longworth & K.E. Wilson (ed.),Problems ogy? Clarke's Analytical archaeology and the Binfords' in economic and social archaeology: 449-81. London: New perspectives in archaeology 21 years on [review- Duckworth. (Reprinted in Clarke 1979: 207-62.) article], Antiquity 63: 831-5. CLARKE,D.L.t 1979. Anolytical archaeologist: collected papers TAYLOR,T. 1996. The prehistory of sex: four million years of of David L. Clarke, edited by his colleagues [R. Chapman, human sexual culture. London: Fourth Estate. S. Clarke, N. Hammond, G. Isaac, S.J. Shennan, A.G. TULEY,C.Y. 1979. Post-glacialcommunitiesin the Cambridgeregion. Sherratt]. London: Academic Press. Some theoretical approaches to settlement and subsistence. DEVEREUX,P. 1997. The long trip: a prehistory of psychedelia. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. British series 66. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. WYNNE-EDWARDS,V.C. 1962. Animal dispersion in relation to ISAAC,G.L. 1979 'The philosophy of archaeology [Introduction social behaviour. London: Oliver & Boyd.