sign in sign up
<<
Home , Archaeological theory, Contemporary archaeology

Matthew Johnson. : An Introduction. Oxford, England and Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 1999. xv + 240 pp. $54.95 (cloth) ISBN 0-631-20295-1; $26.95, paper, ISBN 978-0-631-20296-7.

Reviewed by Charles C. Kolb

Published on H-SAE (February, 2001)

[Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein ments. Data may "ft" the theory -- or does the the‐ are those of the reviewer and not of his employer ory "ft" the data? This issue is at the heart of this or any other federal agency.] new book written by a British archaeologist pri‐ Archaeological Theory: A and Current marily for British students but it is of exceptional Assessment signifcance and utility to American scholars and students no matter what their particular theoreti‐ While excavation and the excitement of dis‐ cal stance, "school," or position. covery, is to the general public the most glam‐ orous aspect of , other aspects are In Archaeological Theory: An Introduction, fundamental to the discipline. These include exact Matthew Johnson undertakes what may by some site and artifact descriptions, scientifc analyses, to be a pedestrian task of discussing current ar‐ classifcation, dating, and interpretations are fun‐ chaeological theory. However, from the perspec‐ damental components of the task of the archaeol‐ tive of the professional archaeologist he under‐ ogist. Although classifcations are posited on de‐ takes the daunting responsibility of explicating in rived or established taxonomies, and relative and clear, non-technical language the current debate absolute methods of chronological determination about archaeological theory as practiced during are well known in the literature, synchronic and the past three decades. This historical approach is diachronic historical assessments of the assem‐ an essential step in synthesizing the diversity of bled evidence are at the core of archaeology as a perspectives and the primary theoreticians who scientifc discipline. While transmuting the inter‐ postulate paradigms and consider such phenome‐ pretations of material remains and contexts into na as the past and current meaning of the "New historical judgments, the contemporary archaeol‐ Archaeology," processual and postprocessual ar‐ ogist is faced with a nearly bewildering array of chaeologies, as well as . theoretical constructs, paradigms, and explanato‐ Johnson's unenviable but essential chore will ry models that explain the validity of the assess‐ please a majority of professional practitioners be‐ H-Net Reviews cause he has created a balanced account of the de‐ "Theoretical Archaeology Group"), "theoretical" bates within archaeology and social sciences in symposia at the Society for American Archaeology general. Nitpickers will point out that "their" par‐ annual meetings and the series Advances in Ar‐ ticular theoretical orientation or paradigm has chaeological Method and Theory. been neglected or deserves a more fulsome treat‐ In his initial chapter "Common Sense is Note ment than Johnson has accorded it. Enough" (pp. 1-11), Johnson points out that "ar‐ Matthew H. Johnson, Professor in the Depart‐ chaeology can be very boring and physically un‐ ment of Archaeology at University of Durham, a comfortable. Every year we excavate thousands specialist in the archaeology of England and Eu‐ of sites, some with painstaking and mind-numb‐ rope 1300-1800, is especially interested in the ing patience, some in a great and undignifed hur‐ study of domestic architecture, changes in the ry. "Every year we churn out thousands of inde‐ landscape, and theory in the human sciences and, terminable, stultifyingly dull site reports, fretting especially, archaeology. Before coming to Durham, over the accuracy of plans and diagrams, collating he taught at Shefeld and Lampeter (Wales) and lists of grubby artifacts to go on microfche that this volume is based, in part, on lecture notes few will ever consult or use again. Why?" (p. 1). from various courses given in those three univer‐ He claims that archaeology is very important be‐ sities. In addition he was a Research Fellow at the cause the past is dead and gone, but it is also very University of California at Berkeley in the spring powerful, and then postulates "who are we?" (p. 2) of 1995, where he conceived part of this volume. before defning archaeological theory. Beginning Johnson is also the author of Housing : in this chapter and continuing throughout the vol‐ Traditional Architecture in an English Landscape ume, Johnson uses a literary device of having un‐ (London: University College, London Press, 1993; dergraduate student "Roger Beefy" (the eternal Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, empiricist) interject queries and serve as a contra‐ 1993), and An Archaeology of Capitalism (Oxford: puntist (to borrow a term from music). Hence, we Blackwell, 1996). are exposed to questions and answers, a light In the Preface to Archaeological Theory: An hearted give and take, some cynicism, and a good Introduction which Johnson titles "The Contradic‐ deal of logical thinking correcting the student's tions of Theory," the author states that his book is fawed notions, guiding the discourse, and instill‐ designed as an "introductory essay on archaeolog‐ ing a desire to learn. It is an efective pedagogical ical theory. It tries to explain something of what technique and attempts to engage the reader/stu‐ 'theory' is, its relationship to archaeological prac‐ dent as an active participant in the discussion of tice, how it has developed within archaeology recent contemporary archaeological theory. over the last few decades, and how archaeological Johnson next ofers four reasons and support‐ thought relates to theory in the human sciences ing evidence about the importance of theory: 1) and the intellectual world generally" (p. x). He We need to justify what we do. 2) We need to eval‐ also notes that the volume is "written to give the uate one interpretation of the past against anoth‐ student an introduction to some of the strands of er, to decide which is the stronger. 3) We must be current thinking in archaeological theory. It is de‐ explicit in what we do as archaeologists. And 4) liberately written as an introduction, in as clear we don't "need" theory, we all use theory whether and jargon-free a fashion as the author can man‐ we like it or not. The emphasis, the author relates, age" (p. xii). Johnson goes on to consider theory, is to "try to illuminate some of the major tends in theorists, political correctness, the "success" of archaeological theory, starting with the 1960s and theory, and cites the TAG conference (the British moving on from there" (p. 11). Johnson adopts two

2 H-Net Reviews strategies: 1) talking at length about the develop‐ versus non-positivist approaches, considering fve ments in associated disciplines and in intellectual sets of beliefs, and concepts from the social sci‐ thought as a whole, and 2) examine the develop‐ ences. Johnson also assesses objections to science, ment of theory historically by examining the ori‐ the perspectives of Thomas Kuhn on successive gins of the New Archaeology and reactions to it. paradigms and Paul ("Anything Goes") Feyer‐ With "Chapter 2: The 'New Archaeology'", we abend's rejection of single methods in favor of an are exposed to the works of David Clarke (espe‐ unlimited diversity of methods. Lastly, Johnson cially Analytical Archaeology, London: Methuen, evaluates "weak" and "strong" social construc‐ 1968), Lewis Binford, Colin Renfrew, and Kent tivism. Flannery. The link of science and anthropology is With "Chapter 4: Testing, Middle-range Theo‐ noted and we are informed that the New Archae‐ ry and " Johnson evaluates on ology is a "movement or mood of dissatisfaction the concept of "testing" beginning with an assess‐ rather than as a specifc set of beliefs" (p. 21). Ma‐ ment of Lewis Binford's arguments about middle- jor emphases were on placed upon cultural evolu‐ range theory (MRT) in linking the past and tion, systems thinking, the use of scientifc tech‐ present. Inevitably, the examples used are the in‐ niques developed in the postwar period (radiocar‐ terpretation of Mousterian culture and Binford's bon dating, , etc.), the stress on Nunamiut research. Two uniformitarian MRT a scientifc approach, and the idea of culture conditions are reviewed: 1) that MRT must be for‐ process. Likewise, he considers biases and objec‐ mally independent from general theory, and 2) tivity, and the understanding of variability exam‐ based on the uniformitarian assumption that con‐ ined through sampling theory and techniques. ditions in the past are like those in the present. As Lastly, Johnson comments on distinctions be‐ an example, Hillman's (1984) ethnoarchaeological tween the North American and British institution‐ model of grain processing in Turkey is presented al "set-up of archaeology," e.g. archaeology as a and followed by a case study on "bones at Oldu‐ part of departments of anthropology versus the vai," prior to Johnson's consideration of MRT British Departments of Archaeology as separate problems: 1) the use and abuse of analogy, and 2) institutions often closely linked to Departments of the issue of cultural continuity. The emergence of History. He employs a case study of Western Euro‐ behavioral archaeology (e.g., Schifer and his col‐ pean megalithic tombs. Johnson writes, "if the leagues) is seen as related to MRT and taphonomy. New Archaeology was a , it sufered the In examining the ways in which societies re‐ same fundamental problems as any revolution," ally "work," Johnson next considers what we that is, in using concepts from science and anthro‐ mean by "anthropology" in his "Chapter 5: Culture pology, archaeologists were faced with working as a System", diferentiating mentalist from sys‐ out in practice what those terms really meant (p. tems approaches. Six aspects of systems thinking 32). are reviewed (adaptation to an external environ‐ The subsequent chapter, "Archaeology as a ment, observable, capable of being modeled, hav‐ Science" considers archaeology as a scientifc dis‐ ing interdependent subsystems, linked subsys‐ cipline, assessing what we really mean when us‐ tems explained by function, and examination by ing the term "science." He accomplishes this by correlation rather than simple causation). An ex‐ examining the context of logical positivism (e.g. ample of post-Roman northwestern European Watson, Redman, and LeBlanc's Explanation in economics (Hodges 1982) is instructive, and John‐ Archaeology , 1971, and Archaeological Explana‐ son then moves into an assessment of the tion: The Scientifc Method in Archaeology 1984) strengths and drawbacks of systems thinking. In

3 H-Net Reviews the case of strengths, it avoids problems of "men‐ 1) the rejection of a positivist view of science and talism," avoids monocausal explanations, and the theory/data split, 2) that interpretation is al‐ serves as a potential source of optimism for ar‐ ways hermeneutic, 3) the rejection of the opposi‐ chaeology. The drawbacks of systems theory in‐ tion between material and ideal, 4) an emphasis clude a "fatal faw of functionalism," a depen‐ on examining thoughts and values of the past dence on functional linkages, inadequate explana‐ (e.g., the historical idealism of Collingwood 1946), tions of change, objectionable political implica‐ 5) the individual is seen as active (agencies are tions (e.g., an ideology of control), and that it is an the active strategies of individuals), 6) that materi‐ external assessment in the attempt to understand al culture is like a text (it can be manipulated and society. Johnson also examines recent modifca‐ "read"), 7) context must be assessed, and 8) that tions of systems theory such as heterarchy (expli‐ interpreting the past is "always a political act" cated by Crumley and Brumfel) and world sys‐ (the meanings produced are always in the politi‐ tems theory (associated with the work of Em‐ cal present and have political resonance). Johnson manuel Wallerstein), and the individual. employs Tilley's (1991) study of Swedish "Chapter 6: Looking at Thoughts" is a brief re‐ and his own examination of Medieval British view of cognitive theory in science and archaeolo‐ houses as case studies. gy, essentialism, ethnocentrism, and idealism. The In "Chapter 8: Archaeology and Gender," discussion of cognitive archaeology or cognitive Johnson reminds the reader that his focus is the processualism (exemplifed by Renfrew, Zubrow, Anglo-American portrayal of theory and he com‐ and Flannery and Marcus), leads to assessments bines theories and exemplars sometimes in an of structuralism and Marxism. We are informed over-simplifed manner. He also comments that that in structuralism "culture is like language" there are contemporary theoretical movements and that culture is fundamentally expressive, a that cut across the previous theoretical traditions system of (hidden, cognitive) meanings, and that and that these interests and movements may be artifacts are the evidence of systems of belief in complementary rather than competing or contra‐ the broadest sense. Johnson also points out that dictory. Herein, he beings with an assessment of Marxism originally was a materialist philosophy or the archaeology of gen‐ and that archaeologists infuenced by Marxism der, with the works of Gero, Conkey, Wylie, Spec‐ perceive close linkages between archaeology and tor, and Gibb used to examine diverse topics in‐ politics. Marxists, we are told, look for contradic‐ cluding gender biases, the archaeologies of gen‐ tions and inequalities in culture. In neo-Marxism der, and the phallocentric nature of knowledge. the focus is ideology which, in turn, has lead to a What this Awl Means: Feminist Archaeology at a detailed examination of how ideology "works" Wahpeton Dakota Village by Janet Spector (1993) and a stress on understanding the background of is employed as a case study. Johnson concludes by and precursors to ideology. observing that "both within the archaeology of Marxist and structuralism helped to favor gender and within the feminist movement as a the intellectual current of archaeological theory whole, there is a great diversity of approaches in the 1980s, elaborated by Johnson in "Chapter 7: and tensions between various viewpoints. Many Postprocessural and Interpretive Archaeologies." of these tensions refect archaeological theory as a is the exemplar of this as seen in as‐ whole; but other tensions point the way for new sessments of spatial analysis (Hodder and Orton thinking in theory beyond some of the more ster‐ 1976). Johnson cleverly characterizes and evalu‐ ile debates of recent years" (p. 131). ates postprocessual thinking in eight statements:

4 H-Net Reviews

Johnson's next diverges from his considera‐ lowing the French philosopher Lyotard [1984]), tion of archaeological theory by introducing the‐ enlightenment philosophy, teleology, and disci‐ matic essays. He initially examines how diferent plinarity. The works and concepts of Derrida and theoretical approaches treat the question of evo‐ Foucault are reviewed and Johnson states that lution in "Chapter 9: Archaeology and Evolution." "the postprocessual turn in archaeology parallels Since the term evolution means diferent things to the postmodern turn in the human sciences diferent theoretical positions, he assesses the dif‐ rather than being derived from it" (p. 166). The ferent meanings by examining the history of ar‐ breakdown of disciplinary divisions and seeking chaeology and of evolution since the ffteenth cen‐ ideas and concepts from outside of archaeology tury, progressing from Herbert Spencer's cultural and science are considered. The case study of the evolution to 's biological evolution, African Burial Ground in colonial New York City Marx and Engels, and unilinear (Service, Fried, with its archaeological, ethical, political, racial, and White) versus multilinear (Steward) treat‐ and "myth breaking" issues provides an excellent ments. Critiques of cultural evolution by Shanks example of in a sensi‐ and Tilley precede Johnson's reviews of sociobiol‐ tive sociocultural setting. The fnal part of this ogy, Dunnell's consideration of phenotype, and, chapter is a discussion of the issue and content of briefy, cultural ecology. An evaluation of Pale‐ relativism. Johnson notes that Brumfel, Wylie, olithic cave art (Mithen 1989) is the case study and Trigger often cast their arguments as replies employed. Lastly, Johnson returns to a critique of to postprocessual critiques, but he contends that Steward's cultural ecology in which Shanks and there is nothing their arguments that contradicts Tilley fgure prominently. Cultural ecology is seen postprocessual tenets and, therefore, implies that as ideological and Johnson holds the opinion that these are complementary. Lastly, he comments on the debate over evolution and ecology is ground‐ the uncertain place of archaeology in the academ‐ ed in "a lack of communication between the dif‐ ic and intellectual world. ferent schools of thought in the 1990s" (p. 147). Johnson's "Chapter 12: Conclusion: Confict With "Chapter 10: Archaeology and History," and Consensus" reiterates his attempt to cover the the author reminds the reader that in the United breadth of archaeological theory, be sympathetic States archaeology is more closely allied with an‐ to diferent theoretical positions, and leave the thropology while in Europe archaeology's sister choice of theoretical orientation to the student discipline is history. Johnson begins with a review reader. He reviews and cites specifc passages of traditional history (Ranke), empirical and in‐ from the works of Binford (1987), Renfrew (1996), ductive approaches, the Annales school (Le Roy Hodder and Bahn (1991), and Shanks and Tilley Ladurie), social history (J. Hawkes) and historical (1992) and attempts to evaluate where archaeo‐ archaeology -- Classical and medieval. British his‐ logical theory "is going." Binford and Shanks and torical archaeology is related to yet diferentiated Tilley engage in a rhetoric of confrontation (take from North American (only it or leave it), with Hodder and Renfrew engaging Deagan's St. Augustine, Florida research is cited). in a rhetoric of conciliation to their theoretical The chapter's case study is the assessment of the colleagues. Renfrew and Bahn, Johnson contends, military versus symbolic nature of Bodian Castle, occupy a middle ground, acknowledge the diversi‐ Sussex (Coulson 1992). ty of theoretical viewpoints, and appear as impar‐ In "Chapter 11: Archaeology in a Postmodern tial commentators. At the turn of the millennium World" Johnson begins with a discussion of the there is a great deal of low quality theory in ar‐ metanarrative and the postmodern condition (fol‐ chaeology and , at the same time, a great deal of exciting new work that employs a wide variety of

5 H-Net Reviews approaches, and, as Johnson, notes in closing, he Ronald L. Michael (for SHA), includes papers from has attempted to persuade the reader that there is the 30th anniversary SPMA-SHA conference held an excitement, importance, and relevance to ar‐ at Colonial Williamsburg and in London. Old and chaeological theory. He also laments "the lack of New Worlds (Oxford and Oakville, CT: Oxbow serious critical thought that pervades much of the Books, 1999) contains 42 contributions grouped recent literature" (p. 187). into fve clusters: "Approaches to the Evidence" (5 Johnson's volume is unlike the traditional his‐ chapters); "Communities of the Old and New torical treatments of archaeology, for example Worlds"; "Bridges and Divisions - Crossing the Gordon R. Willey and Jeremy A. Sablof's The His‐ Seas and Military Operations"; "Manufactured tory of American Archaeology , 3rd edition (San Goods: Production, Movement, and Consump‐ Francisco: Freeman, 1994), which emphasizes ar‐ tion"; and "Humans, Animals, Plants, and Land‐ chaeology by American archaeologists conducted scapes." Given the papers in the "approaches" sec‐ in the United States, Mesoamerica and the Andean tion, I believe that a more global, combined his‐ Region. Likewise, the assessment difers from torical archaeological theory will emerge in the Thomas C. Patterson's Toward a Social History of near future. Archaeology in the United States (Fort Worth: One frequent complaint among faculty is that Harcourt Brace, 1995) which examines archaeolo‐ current graduate students read only books and gy within the context of dynamic social and cul‐ journal articles published during the past one or tural content, and traces the relationships be‐ two decades. If that is indeed the case, Johnson's tween the "neoliberal state," the New Archaeolo‐ book should be among these works to be read and gy, and multiculturalism. digested, and it may even stimulate students to re‐ What criticisms might be leveled at Johnson turn to the "older" literature. We must recall that from the North American perspective? Although the author notes that the book is written for stu‐ there are some over simplifcations in Chapters dents and that it is as clear and jargon-free as he 2-7, scholars trained in North America would can make it. Constructively, he has attempted to probably like to have seen a more fulsome discus‐ position himself between a purely "neutral" or ob‐ sion of Julian Steward and multilinear theory, and jective position and a committed polemic in perhaps more commentary on Michael Schifer which he advances his own views (p. xii). and Kent Flannery. True, there are discussions I have recently been informed that Johnson's about their contributions but these are rather Archaeological Theory is to be published soon in abruptly dismissed. Nonetheless, these criticisms a Spanish-language edition by Editorial Ariel. It are minor. A particular weakness is that Ameri‐ will be interesting to see reviews prepared by our can historical archaeology is undervalued and un‐ Latin American colleagues. Lastly, readers may derrated. I would contend that there is a growing wish to consider Alan Barnard's History and The‐ closeness between scholars who are members of ory in Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni‐ the Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA) and versity Press, 2000) as a supplementary or correl‐ those in the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeolo‐ ative text. Barnard is a social anthropologist at gy (SPMA) at the methodological and interpretive University of Edinburgh and co-editor (with level. For example, Old and New Worlds: Histori‐ Jonathan Spencer) of Encyclopedia of Social and cal/Post Papers from the Cultural Anthropology (1996), and considers top‐ Societies' Joint Conferences at Williamsburg and ics in sociocultural anthropological theory that London 1997 to Mark Thirty Years of Work and parallel and complement Johnson's assessment of Achievement , edited by Geof Egan (for SPM) and archaeological theory.

6 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-sae

Citation: Charles C. Kolb. Review of Johnson, Matthew. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. H-SAE, H-Net Reviews. February, 2001.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=4905

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

7