(Second Edition) the Archaeology of Bruce Trigger
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A History of Archaeology Thought (Second Edition) by Bruce G. Trigger. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 710 pp. ISBN 0–521–84076–7 (hardcover) US$90. ISBN 0–521–60049–9 (paperback) US$31.99. 2006. and The Archaeology of Bruce Trigger edited by Ronald F. Williamson and Michael S. Bisson. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal and Kingston. ISBN 0–7735–3127–0 (hardcover) $80. ISBN 0–7735–3161–0 (paperback) $29.95. 2006. ruce Trigger occupies a tower- ogy a distinctive and perhaps somewhat Bing and distinctive position in Anglo- skeptical perspective that both influ- phone archaeology, having successfully enced Trigger and which he influenced steered an apparent middle intellectual in turn. They find interesting contrasts course between the Scylla of extreme between the contents of the Journal of positivism and the Charybdis of extreme Canadian Archaeology (CJA) and American relativism during his career. I say “appar- Antiquity (AA). AA papers are far more ent” because while he quite explicitly likely to be concerned with culture pro- does that in some publications, in others, cess, whereas more CJA papers are con- such as A History, he seems to offer a cerned with archaeological practice and third ground, not a middle course. Some archaeology’s role in the broader con- of the 16 chapters in The Archaeology of temporary society. They do not mention Bruce Trigger also wonder whether his that one of the major papers on practice distinctive position and influence stem in AA in the last decade was by Canadian from being a Canadian archaeologist. authors (Pokotylo and Guppy 1999). Ronald Williamson, Jeremy Cunning- On the other hand, most such papers in ham, and Jane Kelley, in the essay (“The the United States are published in The Many Influences of Bruce Trigger”) that SAA Archaeological Record, a companion opens The Archaeology of Bruce Trigger, publication to AA. As someone who has Book Reviews suggest Canadian archaeology possesses worked in both countries, I don’t think an important critical distance from the American archaeology is less concerned theoretical debates between and among with practice, although I doubt an edited British and American archaeologists. book celebrating Lewis Binford, for This distance gives Canadian archaeol- example, would contain papers contem- Canadian Journal of Archaeology/Journal Canadien d’Archéologie 32: 128–134 (2008) HistoryofArcHAeologytHougHt/ArcHAeologyofB.trigger • 129 plating the degree to which his impact statements if one looks. While Trigger can be related to his nationality. steered a consistent intellectual course Allison Wylie further develops the during his life, his thinking evolved notion of Canadian archaeology having over time. Wylie also examines Trigger’s a critical distance, applying what she “moderate relativism” (on that, more terms “standpoint theory,” the argument below) and while being generally sup- that those situated on the margins may portive, criticizes him for arguments he be able to “develop a critical perspec- makes in his 1998 article, “Archaeology tive on knowledge production” (p. 32). and Epistemology: Dialoguing Across This view of Trigger’s position and the Darwinian Divide.” In that paper, role in global archaeology reminds me Trigger develops ideas that appear again of Winston Churchill’s comment that in A History and his “Retrospection,” that Canada is the lynchpin of the English- it is important to understand what he speaking world. The discussions about terms evolved human nature and how the marginality of Canadian archaeol- that operates within the constraints of ogy also brought to mind a comment by cultural and social systems. Wylie seems H. L. Mencken, the famous Baltimore to misunderstand Trigger’s point here. curmudgeon of the early 20th century, Stephen Chrisomalis examines that living in Canada must be a lot like Trigger’s favoured methodology, the living in an apartment over a loud, noisy comparative method, in studying the bar. Throughout the collection of arti- development of civilizations. Lynn cles is the thought that Trigger’s strong Meskell discusses Trigger’s contribu- emphasis on diversity and multivocality tions to social archaeology, noting that reflects deep Canadian values. Over his Trigger’s approach differs from that of career Trigger stressed the importance the journal Social Archaeology. Randall of different traditions of archaeological McGuire examines Trigger’s Marxism practice and this is an important theme (discussed further below). Junko Habu in A History. He expands on his commit- and Clair Fawcett discuss V. Gordon Chil- ment to Canada and Canadian archaeol- de’s impact on Japanese archaeology. ogy in his “Retrospection” at the end of Silvia Tomaskava reviews the history of this volume. thinking about shamanism and gender Other chapters in The Archaeology of in archaeology, following Trigger’s Bruce Trigger include Ian Hodder’s brief advocacy of disciplinary histories. These essay entitled “Triggering Post-Proces- are followed by five chapters exploring sual Archaeology and Beyond,” in which in varying ways Trigger’s contributions he both lauds Trigger’s efforts to steer to Native issues through ethnohistory, his middle course and criticizes him archaeology, and advocacy: “Bruce for being trapped by the subject-object Trigger’s Impact on Ontario Iroquoian dichotomy. Besides being the one who Studies” (by R. Pearce, R. MacDonald, here seems trapped in his own thinking, D. Smith, P. Timmins, and G. War- Hodder falls victim to two qualities of rick); Martha Latta on The Children of Trigger’s work that contribute to what Aatentsic, Trigger’s monumental study some see as its ambiguity: it is vast and of the Huron; Toby Morantz’s “In the it has evolved. The corpus of Trigger’s Land of the Lions: The Ethnohistory of publications is so enormous that, like Bruce Trigger”; Alexander von Gernet’s the Bible, one can find contradictory “The Influence of Bruce Trigger on the Journal Canadien d’Archéologie 32 (2008) 130 • Ames Forensic Reconstruction of Aboriginal personal self-interest of archaeolo- History”; and Eldon Yellowhorn’s “The gists that objectivity is impossible. Awakening of Internalist Archaeology in There is no such thing as objec- the Aboriginal World.” The final three tive knowledge, and, therefore, chapters are Michael Bisson’s appre- no one truth but many possible ciation of Trigger at McGill University, antithetical truths. Moderate rela- Brian Fagan on “Bruce Trigger: Ambas- tivists concede that archaeological sador for Archaeology,” and Trigger’s interpretations are influenced by own “Retrospection.” This is followed by society, culture and self-interest Trigger’s truly overwhelming bibliogra- but maintain that archaeological phy. I apologize to article authors for not evidence constrains speculation discussing each of their contributions, (p. 2). but I have to move on to A History of Archaeological Thought. It is also his purpose to demonstrate the The second edition of A History of importance and usefulness of historical Archaeological Thought is expanded and and comparative analyses in filtering considerably reworked relative to the through competing knowledge and epis- first edition (548 pages of text vs. 411, temological claims. Trigger’s account not counting bibliographic essays). and analysis of archaeology’s history is In grappling with A History, I found structured by his historical materialism Understanding Early Civilizations (Trigger and by his commitment to a Realist phil- 2003), Trigger’s other recent vast book, osophical stance (e.g., Bunge 2006). extremely helpful. The primary goal Trigger’s Marxism is examined by of both editions of A History is to assess Randall McGuire in The Archaeology of “problems of subjectivity, objectivity, and Bruce Trigger. This fine essay is both an of the gradual accumulation of knowl- excellent explication of Marxist funda- edge” (p. 1). These problems arise from mentals, perhaps the best one-chapter the conflicting claims of what he sees as account of Marxism of which I am the three “alternative epistemologies … aware, and of Trigger’s development currently being applied to archaeology”: as an historical materialist. McGuire positivism, extreme relativism, and mod- reviews V. Gordon Childe’s profound erate relativism. In Trigger’s words: influence on Trigger and notes that Trigger embraced Marxism’s three Positivist epistemologists maintain goals: to know the world, to critique the that society and culture exert no world, and to change the world. One significant influence on the devel- of McGuire’s goals is to demonstrate opment of archaeology, which is the role of the dialectic in Trigger’s shaped by explicit theories being thinking. McGuire suggests that much tested in the light of adequate of the apparent ambiguity of Trigger’s evidence and according to proper published thought (e.g., the difficulties scientific methods. Extreme in pigeonholing him into ready-made relativists argue that the interpre- theoretical boxes) stems from the dia- tation of archaeological data is lectical nature of his thinking. The dia- so influenced by the intellectual lectic is perhaps clearest in Understanding persuasions, class interests, ethnic Ancient Civilizations, in which Trigger sets loyalties, gender prejudices, and up a clear opposition between what he Canadian Journal of Archaeology 32 (2008) HistoryofArcHAeologytHougHt/ArcHAeologyofB.trigger • 131 calls rationalist and romantic accounts tence of a past separate from and inde- of human behaviour and it is also at pendent of the ideas and perceptions of play in A History, although more subtly. archaeologists or others about it, and of However, in his focus on the dialectic, an archaeological record independent of McGuire misses one of Childe’s most archaeologists in the same way the world important influences on Trigger: Chil- is separate from our imagining of it in de’s propositions: “(1) that the world Childe’s syllogism. Realists study both people adapt to is not the world as it things (appearances) and the effects of really is but the world as people imagine things or processes that cannot them- it to be and (2) that every understanding selves be directly observed (e.g., ideas).