Archaeological Theory

During the 20^th Century archaeologists have used a number of different approaches to examine past cultures, which may be separated into three primary approaches: culture history, processual archaeology, and postprocessual archaeology. Each considered cultures and the material remains of cultures in different ways, though they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They attempt to provide the means to understand the form (description and classification), function (reconstruction of the purpose and associated behavior), process (explaining observed changes or differences), and meaning (significance of patterns and behaviors) of the past (see Handout 1).

Culture history approach
This approach was dominant in the first half of the 20^th Century (especially in North America, less so in European archaeology). It was an approach that reconstructed the past through a focus on determining the sequence (temporal) and geographic (spatial) distribution of cultural remains. Culture history assumed that cultural behavior was patterned and based on a set of shared cultural norms or rules that define that culture. The goal of the archaeologist was to reconstruct that cultural pattern through the analysis and comparison of the preserved material remains.

In terms of analysis, they began with an emphasis on data collection, for it was through the observation of patterns in the data that subsequent interpretation was to be made. Frequently these interpretations were made with reference to ethnographic work (data from the study of living non-Western cultures such as Native American groups) or historic data from extinct but documented cultures. For example, ideas about the spread or dispersal of cultural behaviors or patterns were based on ethnographic analogies from living groups. Thus culture history focused on the patterns of the archaeological record, describing and classifying artifacts and other remains.

Archaeological data from each site were organized in terms of their chronological age (determined through seriation studies or via the principle of superposition) and their geographical location (their spatial position in relation other artifacts, etc.; see Fig. 3.1). Comparisons across sites provided the means to develop a larger, more regional perspective, with cultural sequences divided into periods or phases, with these phases connected across sites in a region through their shared attributes or patterns to form culture areas called time-space grids; see Fig. 3.3). The concepts tradition and horizon were adopted to standardize the models produced using this approach, where tradition referred to cultural continuity through time, and horizon was cultural uniformity at a specific point in time (Fig. 3.3a).

The outcome of this approach was that the patterns of the cultural past of the Americas was reconstructed with reference to time and space. However, it lacked the ability or flexibility to deal with the issue of how or why the observed cultural patterns changed, or why they occurred when and where they did (i.e., the process element). Culture historians tended to get overly focused on the continued refinement of the cultural sequences, especially in attempting to integrate the local site or regional patterns with the larger geographic patterns (e.g., Figs. 3.1, 3.2).

Cultural process or the processual approach
As it sounds, the processual approach specifically attempted to deal with the process side of culture. It developed out of the recognition that pattern documentation was proving limited and unable to adequately reconstruct the cultural reality that was being found. More importantly, for the methodology at least, the processual approach become more focused on how cultural patterns formed, and why similarities and differences within and between cultures occurred.

Culture was viewed not a set of norms or rules, but through two complementary models, one ecological, the other materialist. The ecological model considered culture to be the technological and behavioral means for people to adapt to their environment. Thus changes in culture (as seen in the material remains) indicated changing environments or different uses of the environment. The environment could be the physical world, and/or the social world (including ideology, social institutions, and behaviors).

The materialist model emphasized that culture was the product of biological needs such as food, shelter and sex, the variations in which indicate the adaptive efficiency of the culture to its environment. Like a biological organism, a culture was a system built of the interacting aspects of the technology, economy and demography. Thus, like a system, changes in one area will have an impact on other areas, because each part of the system has a function or functions, which are dependent on other parts for their maintenance. Technological changes will have consequences for economic factors and so on, creating a new system, which may represent a different culture. The analogy to a human body is appropriate as would be an engine, or a company.

Both models use an evolutionary perspective: cultural change represents adaptations to new conditions or needs, as indicated by the preserved archaeological remains. However, unlike the 19^th Century unilinear view of cultural evolution, the ecological and materialist models allowed archaeologists to recognize multiple evolutionary tracks or options(i.e., multilinear evolution). Thus, evolutionary explanations were less constrained by a single model, and more heavily based on local adaptation to environmental or social conditions found within the specific environmental settings or cultural systems. Issues such as the origins of agriculture, the development of social complexity ("civilization") and exchange systems, have benefitted from this revision of evolutionary thinking.

In terms of how processual archaeologists worked, there was also a big shift. Processual archaeologists adopted an explicitly scientific methodology, in which multiple working hypotheses about cultural patterns are tested through archaeological data, with only those hypotheses which are not invalidated retained for further testing. Thus the goal is identify the best explanation or explanations (in terms of adaptations and causes) for the observed patterns. Note that this approach emphasizes the external factors as causes or influences in culture change or adaptations. This approach is referred to as an etic approach which is frequently used by processualists, especially those using ecological models. Much of the work done at Cahokia and with other Mississippian sites has been done within this processual framework (as shown in the Myths and the Moundbuilders video).

Note also that the processual approach is based on a cultural history foundation: without a basic understanding of cultural sequences and cultural geography issues related to causality and process cannot be examined.

Postprocessual approach
As with processual and its precursor culture history, postprocessual approaches came out of the perception that the dominant view (processual) lacked something important: the human non-materialistic component within the culture. They have advocated that archaeological explanation should recognize that culture is maintained and modified through the actions and reactions of individuals, families, and groups; culture is therefore dynamic, with those experiencing it capable of negociate their part in the wider system. The postprocessual approach tends to focus more on the small scale: people's behavior, activities and how they may have viewed themselves and others; hence, it deals more with social identity, ideology, and belief systems than causes or processes (as illustrated in the Mystery of Chaco Canyon video). Thus the goal is to get a better understanding of who is being represented by the material remains, and is less focused on external explanations of patterns. This more internally focused or emic approach follows the wider anthropological trend towards seeing the world as those who live it would.

In terms of their methods, postprocessual archaeologists examine the material remains as if they may be read as texts. By examining the data they may be able to see how issues such as gender, power, and ethnicity were expressed (e.g., as is being done at sites like Cahokia and it surrounding villages and farmsteads). Historical documentation or ethnographic data may provide clues to interpretation, though unless there is a clear connection between the reference culture and the archaeological culture inferences must remain carefully employed. The scientific methodology remains intact, though the ability to refute some hypotheses are frequently more difficult, due to the difficulty in extracting meaning or assessing significance from some of the data. For example, belief systems or religious behavior does not always preserve well archaeologically or may be difficult to interpret without ethnographic data or historical documents.

At present all three approaches are use in North American archaeology. However, most archaeologist tend to be trained within, and be a part of, the processual approach, while accepting that there is a need to examine some issues from a postprocessual perspective. In Europe, postprocessual approaches are more common.

Back to Syllabus