I'hiiorophy and Archileoiogy Reflections On

I'hiiorophy and Archileoiogy history and methodology of Anglo-American archaeology, putting the tumultuous debates of Reflections on Thinking: the last thirty years in historical and philosop11- History, Philosophy, and American ical perspective." The back cover also contains, Archaeology not unexpectedly, testimonials as to the book's By Michael J. O'Brien importance-one from philosopher of science Merrilee Salmon and one from archaeologist 7%inlzingfrom Things: Essdys in the Philosophy ofArchnc- George Cowgill. Salmon believes that the book ofo'~~(2002) ALISONWYLIE. University of California is "for anyone who wants to understand con- I'ress, Berkeley xviii + 339 pages. $39.95. lSBN 0-520- temporary archaeological theory; how it came 22360-8. to be as it is, its relationship with other disci- plines, and its prospects for the future." Cowgill Alison Wylie's book Thinking from Things: opines that Wylie "is a reasonable and astute Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology contains thinker who . commands both philosophy the standard kind of promotional blurb that one and archaeology to an unusual degree." expects to find on a book cover or jacket. Edi- Sounds like the standard fare for back covers, tors usually have someone on their staff take the so why even bother to highlight what appears first shot at writing such a piece, then run it by there? I do it because for once, an introduction the author for editing. Promotional introduc- and the testimonials that accompany it accu- tions by force are succinct-there isn't a lot of rately reflect a book's content and significance. space available-but are they necessarily accu- Wylie is an astute thinker; she does put the rate appraisals of a book's importance? They tumultuous debates of the post-1970 period in might be, but a promotional piece is just that- historical and philosophical perspective; and the something written for the express purpose of book is for anyone who wants to understand helping to sell a book. We don't expect to see, contemporary archaeological theory. Impres- for example, an introduction that says, "In this sively, Wylie treats theory in a non-snoozy man- ponderous, overwritten, and poorly researched ner. She can't make the story line quite as lively book, the author begs us to believe that he's as Chinese treasure fleets reaching the New proved that a Chinese fleet made its way to the World, but her writing style helps keep the read- North American continent in 1421." er's interest. Wylie, like Salmon, is one of the No editor, let alone an author, would let few philosophers competent to comment on something like that make its way onto a book both archaeology and philosophy. What places cover or jacket, no matter how much veracity Wylie in even more of a minority is that she the statement might have. Rather, we would actually was trained as both a philosopher and expect to see something like what actually an archaeologist, first at Mount Allison Univer- appears on the jacket: "1421: The Ear China sity in New Brunswick and then at the State Discovered America is the story of a remarkable University of New York at Binghamton. As wit- journey of discovery that rewrites our under- nessed in the early 1970s, many American standing of history." In reality, the book (Men- archaeologists acted as if they were trained as zies 2003) does no such thing, being at best a both, but the ~ublishedrecord strongly suggests work of fiction, but a promotional introduction that for the most part they were better archaeol- is not going to point that out. It's there to help ogists than philosophers. sell the book, as are the select quotations that I use this essay as a springboard from which to come from a glowing review in the London explore a few select aspects of American archae- Evening Standard. ology's forays into philosophical issues. As such, Armed with the proper skepticism, let's see it is not so much a review of Wylie's book as it is what Wylie's book is about. For one thing, it a glimpse at a few points along the ~athof tells us that archaeology is "a deeply philosoph- archaeology's gowth, using several of Wylie's ical discipline" and that Wylie, "one of the field's essays as a rough pide. I bypass discussion of most important theorists," explores "how numerous important topics that Wylie addresses archaeologists know what they know." For in various places, including critical theory, another thing, it tells us that she "examines the archaeology and gender, argument from analogy, .? 0 The KEVIEIY ofAHCHAEOLOCY Vo!. 25, IVIII'IIII~I,2 and ethics. I refer interested readers to Marcia- Hi3tot.y ufilr~cbneu!~~:so that "we can appreci~te Anne Dobres's (2004) review of Wylie's book in new developments in relation to those that have American Antiquity, in which she highlights gone before; and from this historical perspective some of these topics. In the interest of disclosure we may also sec more clearly the significance of I note that I reviewed Wylie's book for American the new directions in which the field is moving" Ant/~ropologist,although I could accomplish little (Willey and Sabloff 19749). in 750 words other than to state that the book As important as a knowledge of history is in serves a useful purpose as an introduction to the helping us appreciate new directions, the rea- role of philosophy in archaeology. sons why such knowledge is important go deep- The issue that most concerns me here, as the er than this. Paul Bohannan and Mark Glazer cover blurb on Wylie's book phrases it, is "how (1988:~)argued that we should study the his- archaeologists know what they know" about the tory of a discipline to "save [ourselves] a good past. I would add two words to that phrase, deal of unnecessary originality." As humorous as making it read, "how archaeologists think they this might sound, their point is well taken. It know what they know" about the past. There is would be difficult to count the times when a big difference. There also is a big difference archaeologists honestly believe they have between the cover quote, "archaeology is a devised a new concept or method and published deeply philosophical discipline," meaning that a paper on it, only to have someone point out it is philosophical in the abstract, and "archaeol- that someone else said the same thing fifty years ogy us practiced is a deeply philosophical disci- earlier. Worse yet is when someone completely pline." Archaeology most definitely is a deeply misrepresents a fact or argument because he philosophical field of inquiry, although the cited a secondary source in which the author manner in which it often is practiced does not scrambled the original information. These do much to reflect this point. In fact, I might go embarrassing predicaments result from being so far as to further amend the first statement ignorant of a discipline's history. above, making it now read, "how archaeologists On a different note, it often is stated that by think they know what they know. when they understanding the history of a discipline, one take the time to think about it." can avoid the mistakes of one's predecessors (e.g., Mayr 1982). This is true, although I don't PHILOSOPHYAND HISTORY particularly like the word "mistakes." Many of Philosophy is the rational investigation of the things we {night count as mistakes in questions about knowledge-how we know archaeology result from honest attempts to use what we think we know. But even if we accept available information to solve intellectual prob- that archaeology is by nature a deeply philo- lems. Hindsight provides a unique perspective, sophical discipline, does this mean that we can't but without clear parameters it can begin to do good archaeology without thinking about border on smugness and condescension. At best, philosophical issues-or "thinking from we become historical revisionists. Take, for things," as Wylie phrased it in the title of her exampie, the term epistemology, the branch of book? Maybe we L-dn do "good" archaeology philosophy that deals with the origin and nature without explicitly thinking too much about of knowledge. The odds are small that we will such issues, but there is every reason to suspect find more than an occasional use of the term in that we can do better archaeology by adopting a archaeology before the 1970s, when the philos- philosophical point of view. Wylie's book, espe- ophy of science (or onc brand of it) became the cially Chapter 6, "Between Philosophy and centerpiece of a new Arnericanist movement. Archaeology," is a good companion guide. (Gordon Lowther used it in his 1962 article There's something else that all archaeologists "Epistemology and Archaeological Theory" could profit from, namely, having a basic knowl- [Lowther 19621, but there probably are a few edge of the history of the discipline, especially earlier examples.) At that point, "epistemology," where philosophical issues are concerned. There along with "hypothetico-deductive," "nomolog- are a number of reasons why someone might ical," and other borrowed terms became de benefit from an awareness of disciplinary history, rigeur in American archaeology. including what Gordon Willey and Jeremy Maybe archaeologists working in the pre- Sabloff singled out as the reason they wrote A processualist days were not focused on epistemology, but were they thinking in any philo- in considerable depth (e.g., Lyman et al. 1997), sophical terms? As Wylie points out, one early especially those relating to four archaeologists foray into philosophy was by Clyde Kluckhohn who figure prominently in Wylie's story-James (1939), who was technically an ethnographer,- - Ford (O'Brien and Lyman 1998, 1999), W C.

Load more