Archaeological Theory: an Introduction

Matthew Johnson. Archaeological Theory: 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 "fit" the theory -- or does the the‐ are those of the reviewer and not of his employer ory "fit" 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 History and Current marily for British students but it is of exceptional Assessment significance 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 archaeology, 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, scientific analyses, to be a pedestrian task of discussing current ar‐ classification, 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 classifications 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 scientific 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 cognitive archaeology. 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 undignified 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 Sheffield and Lampeter (Wales) and lists of grubby artifacts to go on microfiche 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 defining archaeological theory. Beginning Johnson is also the author of Housing Culture: 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 flawed notions, guiding the discourse, and instill‐ designed as an "introductory essay on archaeolog‐ ing a desire to learn. It is an effective 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 offers 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 Ethnoarchaeology" Johnson evaluates on ology is a "movement or mood of dissatisfaction the concept of "testing" beginning with an assess‐ rather than as a specific 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 scientific 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, paleoethnobotany, etc.), the stress on Nunamiut research. Two uniformitarian MRT a scientific 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., Schiffer and his col‐ pean megalithic tombs. Johnson writes, "if the leagues) is seen as related to MRT and taphonomy. New Archaeology was a revolution, it suffered the In examining

Load more