Chap t er 1

NE W A PPROACHES TO OLD PROBLEM S -·

A r chae ology in Search of an Ever Elusive Pa st
-
David S. Whi t ley

Introduction

Can we u e ton tool to reconstruct the evolution of language

in earl hominid ? Do knowledge of the pa t require an empathi
under tanding of th fe ling and motion of pr hi toric people ?
Are relation hip between prehi toric ocial group characterized
b dominanc and onfuct or cooperation and integration ? What
place did art and vmboli m pla r in the working of prehi toric
oci ti ? And i ar haeolo a cien e that can r con truct orne
obj cti' e ' iew of th pa t or instead m erel a r efl ection of the
pre ent u ed to ati fy our ov.n oft n unrecogniz d) id ological
need ?
Th e and irnilar que tion ha e cour ed through Anglo -
Am ri can ar haeolo · in e about 19 0. Th ha e challenged the
intelle tual dominance and academic complacenc of the archae-
ology of the 1970 in the proce conte ting its philo ophi al ba i
ub tantiY inter and explanator capabilitie . Hardl uniqu to
archaeolog) irnilar intell tual mo em nt are vi ible in other
academic field in luding o ·al cience uch a geograph and
ociolog) and di cipline in the humaniti like hi tor and lit ra-
tur .
Y< t for all the " ide preadne of thi intellectual upheaval, in
archa ology at least it i far from ettl d . For orne ar haeolo-
gi thi hallenge to th arus quo ha rved to further entrench
th r ationale and approach of th 1970 variou I lab 1 d new
proce ual or ttl m ent- ub i ten e archa ology. Perhap blind-
ided b th intell ctual change b not having een them coming
on th horizon in orne e the archaeologi ts ha e b en put
2 DAVIDS . WHITLEY

in the po ition of either defending their Ia t thirty· year of hard work, or conceding
that their re earch career are now irrelevant due to the writing of orne French
ocial critic who e name they cannot even pronounce. Entire! a ide from the intel-
lectual i sue involved, their re i tance to change i under tandable, if not
predictable. Other, typically youn er, archaeologi t have committed to the new
way of viewing and tud)ing the pa t. Their work ha gone b variou name ,
ranging from contextual to radical to interpretive, to po t-moderni t, but the
main trand are mo t commonl~· called po t-proce sual and cognitive archaeology
- term that are u ed here. And other archaeologi t - probabl the majority -
fall omewhere in between. The~· wonder whether the e new approache are
an -thing more than armchair theorizing. They are uncertain of the rele ance of
French literary theor to the tone artifact from the Archaic ite the have been
excavating. They doubt that we can recon truct the mind of prehi toric people
in an cientific wa ·. And the~· are confu ed by the a ertion that archaeologi t
create the pa t in th pre ent and, therefore that there i no objective pa t to
recon truct or know. If thi i o they a k then how can archaeology be relevant,
or worth doing at all?
Thi reader ha b n prepared \\ith thi la t group of archaeologi t in mind. It
purpo e i to provid an oven ievv of orne of the main theme and trend in cogni-
ti,·e and po t-proce ual approache that ha,·e appeared and been elaborated in
Anglo-American ar haeolog:-· ince about 19 0. Thi i no ea ta k becau e th e
new approache ar b)· their very nature diver e and quickl evolving. Unlike the
change from traditional to new archaeology during the 1960 , the dev lopment of
cognitive and po t-pro ual approach ha involved a movem nt awa from a
ingle point of view toward multiplicitY. Cognitive and e p ciall po t-proce ual
archaeology invoh· hiftin per pecti,·e on theory method , and our of theo-
retical in piration makin them ome thing of a moving target. Y: t it i pr ci 1
the difficulty in d finin ognitive and po t-proce uaJ archaeol gi and outlining
their re earch a nd in imple term that make a reader lik thi o nece ar .

Origins and imilaritie

What are cognJtive and po t-proce ual archaeologie ? HO\ do the differ from th
proce ual archa ol gy of the 1970 and from each other? What implication do
the have for th ar haeology of the n,·en ·-fir t centur ·? Th e and other like
them are the lar0 er que tion that are brought by a tudent to a volume of thi
nature. For thi rea on it i worth tarting ''ith orne definition and an outlin
of orne o the major tenet of the e approache before turning to th author and
paper in lud d h re.
The term po -proce ual i by i very nature relational. It implie the
antecedent pro e ual"· in thi case proc sua] archaeoloB.J- the definition of which
i a ood pla for u to b gin. Thi i not o much becau proce ual archaeology
 NEW APPROACHES TO OLD PROBLE MS 3

i poorl under tood but becau e it intellectual hi tor ha orne important impli-
cations for our main ubject cognitive and po t-proce ual archaeologie .~_b_:~ad
term the new or proce ual archaeology reflected an effort to make traditional
archaeology which was primaril de criptive and concerned with defining culture-
hi tor into a cienti.fic anthropology. The model of cience adopted b proce ual
archaeology wa th one current in the 1950 and, to a le er extent during the
1960 . It i referred to b)- archaeologi t , a positivism. It main point included an
intere t in explaining empirical ob erntion about human behavior through cro -
cultural generalization or law · a belief that the e empirical observation (our
archaeological data are independent of our theorie that the e data can be u ed
to te t theorie and that the re ult V'.ill be an objective knowledge about the pa t·
and the idea that a logical tructure for cienti.fic te ting and explanation could be
found in the natural cien e uch a ph ics or chemi try) . Indeed a vvith many
science in the po t- orld War U era the method and philo ophical commitmen
of the po iti\i t natural cience ' ere thought to be universal! applicable to all
cience natural and ocial including archaeology.
Proce ual archa ology a1 o maintained a ' temic view of culture , which erved
a it 1ink to cienti.fic anthropology. Thi e culture a tern of ociall tran -
mitted behavior pattern that relate human communitie to their ecological etting .
Culture chang . then primaril , a pro e of adaptation to the emironment and
natural election. ~ chnology ub i tence and element of ocial organization mo t
directl r tied to production uch a econom ') are the mo t important a pee of
culture to anal ·ze from thi p r pective becau e the are the most trongl linked
to adaptation. Th corollary of thi la t point i that cultural phenomena uch as
religion ritual and art ar epiphenomenal - derivative or econdar in nature -
and thu anal -ti all irr levant ee K e ing 1974:75- 76).
Proc ual archa ology was of cour e a hi torical product of it time. One impor-
tant implication of thi fa re ults becau e po itivi m a umed to be the 'true
and onl - cien wa i elf in a tate of intellectual upheaval at the arne time
that it " ·a being adopted bv archaeologi t Toulmin 1977 · Alexander 19 2a ·
Gardn r 19 5 · Giddens and Turner 19 7a · Manica 19 7; hank and Tille 19 7a ·
Kelle r and Han n 19 . Anthropology reflecting \vider hift in the cience was
al o changing D Andrade 19 4· Ortner 19 4 , even though a egment of it ha
r tained the concern \\ith v tern and adaptation een in archaeology. Proce ual
archaeology in oth r word undertook the adoption of a model of cience and an
anthropological approach exa tlv when the e were in the proce of b ing r placed
in the ocial cience mor gen rall and within anthropology pecificall . Thi i
important and i the fir t point that n ed to be made about cognitive and po t-
proce ual archaeologie . [ the impl level, coanitive and postprocessual archaeoloaies
can bach be understood as q_Jorrs w c update" archaeolo8J and brinB it back in-line with
onaoinB trends in science and philosophy (Hodder 19 7a:xv) .
b - proc ual ar haeolo - adopted and in man ca e till retain an
approach that ' a on th way out in other di cipline i open to debate. Doctrinaire
4 DAVID S. WHITL EY

proce uali t argue that the Ioyalr:· to thi approach re ults from it empirical
ucce . Although proce ual archaeology ha large! abandoned its original goal of
defining law-like explanations for human behaYior in favor of middle-range theo-
rizing, it till ha been produ tiYe and there i orne truth to thi a ertion. But
another factor results from the nature of the pecific cientific model that proce -
uali m adopted. Becau e po iti,-i m wa thought to repre ent a kind of "unified
cience" applicable to all di cipline , proce ual archaeologi t percei ed their
primar methodologi cal t k to b examining and adopting the logic of the natural
cience the model upon which po iti' i rn wa ba ed. They al o as umed that po i-
tivi m was the only form of cience - it wa literall 'po itivi m or else" - and
that thi kind of cience entailed no philo ophical contradiction or problem . ln
thi view philo ophical i ue a well a intellectual debate in other social cience
(including anthropol og} could be - and were - ignored ee Alexander 1982a: 7;
Gidden and Turner 19 7a:2 . The danger of uch a circum tance i • ell expre ed
b Reed ( 19 1 :4 77 for a parallel but archaeologicall relevant ca e in p chology:
"Attempt to rem oYe all philo ophizing from a domain are likel to remove onl
explicit, potentiall impro,·able idea at the expen e of embedding tacit, potentiall
damaging, idea into the fabric of a field e al o Toulmin 1977:152). The unified
cience view of po iti.-ism allmved archaeologi t to ignore int llectual debate in
other di cipline ju t as on of the e debate within philo oph , v a undermining
thi very arn e po iti'i t cience e Ale and r 19 2a) .
Reed' comment about p ychology i particular! rele ant to archaeology becau e
it wa directed towar one of the major intellectual mo em nt of th twenti th
century, one that \\·a implicitly but wid e! adopted in pro e ual archaeology:
behaviorism Peeble 1 · v hitle · 1992 . Proce ual archaeologi ar not alon
in having implicit! · adopted beha,iori m. ociologi t (and elf-a owed b haviori t
George Homans 1 :65 ha noted that man ocial cienti who in fa t u e
behaviori m do not r aliz that the · are doing o . Thi i b cau man take b hav-
iori m a "ju t common n e based on the fa t that crud g neral characteri ti
of our own beha,ior are what we tend to know b t and mo t a il appl to our
anal e ibid: 6 . ur irnpre ioni tic 'iew of the wa we behave a analo-
gie and model that we project on to p t beha,ior.
Behaviori m · an intellectual po ition that i alli d with positivi m. It hold that
people and the thin"' that the · create can be under tood be t in term of tirn-
ulu and re relation hip D Andrade 19 4: . It thereb in orporate a
trong b li in th ' upremac · and determining power of the environment'
(Gardner 19 5: 11 : individual are p iY reflector of the force and factor in
their urroundin environmen not indi,idual acting out their own idea or inten-
tion . Human behavior in other word i ca ed b · external Yen and force .
Behavior· al o typically maintain that re earch hould b re tricted to th directl '
ob ervable beha,ioral re pon e and that the explanation of the e ob er able
re in o enable phenomena external timuli . A cognitive cienti t HO\·\ ard
Gardner no t behaviori
 NEW APPROACH ES TO OLD PROB L E M S 5

e che,..,· uch topic a mind thinking, or imagination and such concep a

plan de ire or intention . or ought they to countenance hypothetical
m ental con truct like Tilbol idea , chema , or other po ible form of
m ental repre entation .... According to behaviori ts all p chological
activity can b adequate! · explained without re orting to the e my teriou
mentali tic entitie .
Gardner 19 5: 11

The direct link between beha\iori m and processuali m ' " temic viev of culture
hould be obvious. Culture change one of the primary intellectual intere t of
proce ual archaeology tart \vith change in the emironment (the external cau e)
nee itating hif in adaptation (human behavior), yielding a new form of culture
(a ocial ph nom enon . For archaeologi t , all of the e are seen in the directly
ob en ·able mater ial a p ee of the archaeological record: artifact m onumen
ite and their di tributions and emironmental a ociation .
The re ult of the e per pective in archaeology ha e b en manife t in different
wa . One i a variant of 'behavioral archaeology" (Earle and Preucel 19 7; Earle
1991 ) that has the adyantage of explicitl ' recognizing and building on i connec-
tion v\ith behaviori t th ory. Another i the concern with ite formation proce e
and middle-range th or · e.g. chiffer 1976 ; Binford 1977) . Thi eeks, in general
term a better under tanding of the way the archaeological record reflects pa t
behavior - in e n e to make our archa ological 'ob er vable " more objective! ·
o. But the m o t important if not perva i e link with behaviori m i the ecolog-
ical - adaptationi t per pective that i a foundation of proce ual archaeology. From
thi per pective e ~lanation of pa t human events i ought in external factor and
events uch a en,ironmental change. Thi make the human mind and cognition
larg 1 · irrel evant.
It is the behaviorism cf processualism (or more precisely, its rejection) that unites cogni-
tive and porrprocessual archaeologies. At the ri k of coining an additional term both
are in e enc po t-b haviori t approache to prehi tor . Thi i the econd point
that i nece ar · to under tand th e approache .
Cogniti and po tproce ual archaeologie then challenge the behaviori m of
proce ual archaeolo ~·· Th ;· do thi b tacitl recognizing that human mind and
cognition 'vere ke a or in th creation of the archaeological record and they
mu t be invok d if an ad quate explanation or interpretation of pa t behavior i to
be achieved. They do this b caus the \iew proce ual archaeology, at a minimum
a inadequate or in th more extrem view a fatall flav ed, in cientific philo-
ophical and / or ideological term . Example of wh thi o expre ed in
th oretical term and bv empirical ca e tudie , are provided in the paper included
in thi volum e · ther i no n ed to outline them her e. More important at thi
point i a formal ,·en if prmi ional en e of what cognitive and po t-pro e ual
archaeologie ar and how they differ.
Although th r e · " ide pread consen u about the g neral nature of proce ual
ar haeology much l agreement e::xi t over an single definition of cognitive or
 6 DAVIDS. WHITLEY

po t-proce ual archaeologie . ontra ting definitions and interpretation haY

beenpreentedbyLeone 19 2 Trigger 19 4),Hodder(1985, 1991) Patteron
1990), Preucel (1991), Yo ee and herratt (1993), author in the orweaian Archae-
oloaical View 22, 19 9 and the Yiewpoint ection of the Cambridae Archaeoloaical
journal 3[2], 1993, among other , a well a in some of the paper included here.
Without claiming that it i a con en us ,-iew, I define coanitive archaeoloay as an
approach that eek explanation of human behavior at lea t in part b ' explicit
reference to the human mind. Cognitive archaeologi t , in thi 'ie , retain a
commitment to cience and cientific method although not nece aril to the po i-
tivi m of proce uali m. Thi enable orne of them to percei e their cognitive
archaeological approach an outgrov.--th of proce ual archaeology. Cognitive
archaeology i a rejection of beha,iori m but not a repudiation of all things proce -
ual. I include struauralisc. r haeoloax a a nriant of cognitive archaeology. Derived
from French anthropologi t laude Levi- trau ' tructuralism, thi approach i
predicated on a uniY r al theor} of the way the mind operate , and i part of an
· effort to develop a cien e of the mind. fundamental principle of thi theor i
the notion that the mind tructure the world in term of binar oppo ition uch
a good and bad bla k and 'vhite and o on . Post-processual archaeoloBJ' maintain
an interest in the human mind and e peciall · the importance of intentional human
action (produc of thinking rather than impl ' reacting individual ) in creating the
past. Typicall po t-proc ual archaeologi t di avo cientific method and expla-
nation in favor of interpr tatio of the pa t. Po t-proc uali t al o foreground
ideological factor in the reconstruction and use the pa t and ometime maintain
political commitmen in the modern world that ar explicitl ' tated in their
archaeological "Titin .
There are of our e a number of approache that fall orne h re in between
the e extreme . The will become e'ident in the pap r included here a w 11 a
the di cu ion b low.

Summary

Proce ual ar ha ology developed at the tart of a period of int ll tual change in
philo oph r • n e and the humanitie . It prirnaril in orporat d th older idea
and approa he that were eYen then being que tioned and r placed in other di ci-
pline . o ·tiYe and po t-proce ual archaeologie repre ent fforts to update
archaeolo"'_. by incorporatin man)· of the e new idea th orie and approache .
CognitiYe and po t-proce ual archaeologie differ in a numb r of wa b low but
hare a r j ·on of the beha,iori m that i fundam ntal to pro e ual archaeology.
Tacit in thi reje tion of b ha,iori m i the importance of mind and cognition both
in th cr a ·on of the archaeological record and in it explanation or interpreta-
tion. The · tence of cognitiYe and po t-proce ual archaeologie as challenge
to pro e ual archaeology demon trate that the latter belief that there could be a
ingl unified cience appropriate for all di cipline i fal e. ot onl · i there no
 NEW APPROACHES TO OLD PROBLE MS 7

ingle approach cientific or otherwi e) applicable to all discipline , but there doe
not even eem to b ju t one for archaeology taken alone.

Major themes and major differences

Once b ond the g neral imilaritie outlin d abo e, an typology of cognitiYe

and po t-pro e ual archaeologie would be hard if not impo ible to con truct. Man ·
po t-proce uali in fact would con ider uch an effort counter-productive becau e
heterogeneit · in approache and per pective i one of their goal . In the following
eli cus ion I outline instead orne of the ke theme and i ue that are di cu ed or
implied b the e di parate approaches. the article in thi reader make clear
different archaeologi combine the e them e and accept or reject the e i ue in
different and ometime une pected wa · .

Arc h aeology and scien ce

Th mo t fundamental i ue in cogrutJve and po t-proce ual archaeologie , of
cour e are philo ophical one a th mu t be for all eli cipline ) . A ke theme
then i the philo ophical b i for archaeology and archaeological r earch, ·w ith
particular attention focu ed on the nature of " cience". The related que tion i
wh th r archaeological re earch can be condu ted ' cientificall ". In thi context I
u e cience in the loo e gen ral en in which it i common! emplo ed b non-
philo opher : orne r onabl · y tematic approach that yield repeatable conclu ion
with wide-ranging applicability and knowledg that i objectiYe. Thi definition of
cien i intentionally more general than th one I have giYen for po itivi m above .
The theor tical and philo ophica1 i ue rai ed b cognitive and po t-proce ual
archa ologie and their implication for archaeology are omplex and not ea il
ummarized. More detailed eli cus ions of orne of them from various archaeo -
logical persp ctive are pro,ided b · Hodder ( 19 2 19 6) Wvlie 19 2 19 Sa
19 5b hanks and Till y 19 7a, 19 7b , Preucel ( 1991 and Whitle 1992 .
Another good ovenie\\· i prmi ded b Jeffr · C. Al ander ( 19 2a . Alexander
eli cus ion i advantaged beca e it addre e the e i ue from a ociological per pec-
tive making it easier for u to relax the ar haeological commitment , biase and
emotion that we brin to a r 'iew of the matter. A he hmv ociology confronted
the e i ue before ar haeology. And it sunived.
The primar · cont ntion in the philo ophical debate con ern the que tion of
whether an objective re onstruction of the pa t can occur. B objective here i
meant a reconstru tion that · tru to the actual ev nt in the pa t rather than
one that i influ nc d or bia ed b · th cienti t making the recon truction due to
hi or her valu or by th ocial and cultural context \o\ithin which he or he
condu thi re earch. If no uch objective pa t can be recon tructed, then ob,i-
ou ly an · claim to objective knowl dge in a general en e truth" mu t be fal e.
8 DAVIDS. WHITLEY

Thi call into que tion the abil.it;- to conduct cience at all , ina much a orne
degree of objective knowledge i the cientific goal .
Thi i sue turns on a technical point that concern the relation hip between
empirical fact (our archa olo · al data and our theories . B theorie here I m ean
the larger philo ophical ideological and metaph ical bel.ief and attitude that we
hold , m ore than the pecific hypothe e that we rna be in e tigating archaeologi -
call , although the count too. Po itivists maintain that a radical break exi ts
between fact and theorie ; that empirical facts are 'theor -free". This is impor-
tant becau e if thi i not o and if fact depend om ehow on theories, then
the fact cannot r ightly be ed to te t or prove theories in an conclusi e ense
(becau e the two are intr" ically related). The theor -free nature of fact i e sen-
tial fo r the po itivi t claim of obtaining objecti e knowledge .
Postpositivism i a reaction against po iti\i m , incl uding it theory-free \iev of
fact . Like po t-proce uali m it repre en a range of view , but a a general rule
po t-po itivi t philo ophie of cience claim that fact and theor are inherent!
related. The rea on for thi i traightforward . Without a guiding theor we do
not know what our fa are or hould b . Potentiall , the could be any mpir-
ical phenom ena in th univer e. Cer tain!, \ve do have a "common en e" viev of
what archaeological a are, allowing u to el.iminate man phenomena as irrele-
vant and keeping orne that are not . But thi i ba ed on our knowledge of the
hi tor of ar cha ological practi e a well as on our impl.icit a umption and bia e .
It is not the r e ult of a ituation in \"-·hich facts are om kind of ' givens" that exi t ,
independent of our theorie and our elve a po itivi m uppo ed .
Projectile poin provide a good if tri\i al exampl of thi cir urn tance . We all
recognize them a archaeological fa regardl of wh ther v e are proce ual
po t-pro e u al or c gnitive archa ologi . We al o all recogniz that certain attrib-
ute of proj ctil point are inferen tial! · useful and er e a fa in their own
righ . B al hap i used in typologi and help u e tabli h age and cultural
affiliation. Lithi material mav be indicative of trade relation . And flaking pattern
rna be u ed to re on truct a tool production equen c . But let us on ider a hypo-
thetical ca : what about color? I the color of a projectile point an archaeological
"fact or ould it be?
To m know ledg projectile point color i not typicall con ider ed an ar haeo -
logical fa . Thi i because m o t archaeologis lack th orie about prehistory
indicatin at tone tool color has an ' inferential alue . Yet it i po ible u ing
ethnographi data to construct a plausible ethnographic argument for just uch a
view in th region where I conduct m re earch the Great Ba in. Color her had
ymbol.ic m anin : black wa as ociated 'v'ith male th dire tion ea t and controlled
and po ·tiYe u p rnatural power· red with wom en we t and dang r ous and uncon-
trolled u p rnatural power. Projectile poin wer e u ed for hunting but the
wer al o part of hamanic ritual where olor ymbol.i m wa important Whitle
199 a . Th y are al o found in eremonial context : a burial offering . If projec-
tile point were us d cer emonially and olor ymbol.i m wa incorporated into
 NEW APPROACHES TO OLD PROBLE MS 9

ritual, it follow that the color of the e artifact rna have orne inferential meaning
and thu that olor hould be an attribute of projectile points we record, and treat
a a "fact".
Thi ugge tion appear even more rea onable hen two other circum tance are
rai ed. Thi fir t concerns one of the historic urnic bands, known a the White-
Knife ho hon teward 193 : 161-163) who lived in this region. In thi ca e
it is preci el · the color of a tone tool that wa u ed ethnographicall a the iden-
tifying characteri tic. of thi particular band, indicating that tone tool color had
meaning pertaining to band member hip. The econd circum tance concerns the
exual clivi ion of labor. Bow hunting wa a male activity; arrow were therefore
male artifacts one Nurnic term for them i ynonymou with ''penis''); and black
wa the color as ociated with male . It might reasonably be inferred that all thing
being qual relative to available lithic material ) black would be the preferred color
for projectile poin . If thi eem implau ible, con ider the fact that no profe -
ional football teams e pink a their team color refle ting pervasive gender -
color rrnboli m in our own culture . Projectile point color can then piau ibly be
argued to have th potential to inform us about ymbolic, ocial and political dimen-
ion of the material cultur record.
Again thi i not intend d a plea to treat the color of tone tool a an archa -
ological fact. It i just meant to illu trate that our 'common sen e' view of fact
i ba ed on perience and bia e and that fact do not ha\ e orne independent
and obj ctiY exi tenc ou ide of our theorie , a po itivi m uppo ed. We ignore
the color of ton too b cau e vve have no wid 1 known example of a tud ·
howing how thi attribute might be u eful in archaeological interpretation . And
olor i ignor d in more general term b cau e proce ual archaeology a umed
that ymboli m and other uch mental con tructs are epiphenomenal, and there-
fore pla ' littl part in archa ological explanation .
The putatiY th ory-free nature of fact i one of the mo t problematic po tu-
late of po iti,-i m and it wa atta ked in orne of the earlie t critique of thi
model of cien e. ven in po itivi t proce ual archaeolog the difficulty in objec-
tive} under tandin empirical fact has been re ognized re ulting in efforts to
develop middle-ran theor:· e.g. Binford 1977 . Thi ' a thought nece ar ·
b cause of unique probl m pre ented b the natur of our archa ological fac :
the archaeological r cord i an indirect reflection of behavior and cannot give u
dire t beha,ioral ob n ·ation . Actually other ocial cience had irnilar difficul-
tie with their a too ven though the do not derive them from the
archaeological record o th problem i not olel archaeological. Th be t
exampl is ociology which h a long hi tor of con ern vvith middle-range theory
preceding that in ar ha olo · bv a fe, decade e.g. Merton 1949) . It i for thi
rea on that philo oph r om time call middle-range theor an attempt to de elop
an 'ob ervation language . It i al o for thi rea on that the po iti"i m of proce -
ual ar haeology h b en ''idel~r r j cted a a model of cience in mo t di cipline .
hile philo oph · i a cont ntious field, there do em to be " ide pread though
10 DAVIDS . WHITLEY

I m ure not univer al agreement that po ltlVI m radical di tinction between

theor and fact i un upportable . The beliif chat fact and theory are independent is a
core postulate if positivism. The widespread rejection if this beliif is one if the key justifi-
cations fo r cognitive and posc -processual archaeologies. As hould be clear, it in olves a
fundamental philosophical probl m for cienc and therefore hould not be ignored.
Unfortunately, ther e i no single, ,.,idely accepted olution to the fact- theor
problem, with a continuum of po ·tions having developed. The extreme philo-
ophical po ition known a relacivism, i that fact and theor are full equivalent.
All knowledge i then ba ed on the knower and there i no independent wa of
verifying anything. E"·er;-thin i ubjective including the pa t, and ince there can
be no objective pa t there an be no objective r econ truction of it. Often there is
a trong ideological and moral commitment that accompanie thi position. This
claim that the knowl d that we create in our re ear ch) i a refl ction of exi ting
tructure of dominance and ubordination in our ociety. Our efforts to create
and promote thi knowl d e are de faao effort to upport the unju t ocial status
quo. In thi view cienc i a kind of political and moral action. The role of the
a-v are and critical ci nti t i to fight the e tructure of dominance . Thi i done
by creating knowled"'e in the form of critical interpretation that expo e ocial
inju tice. Thi po ition i a rejection of cience, a uch.
The moderate po tpo iti'i t ' iew m oderate becau e it repr n le of a move
awa from po iti \i m hold that e,·en though fact and theor ar interrelated we
till hould and an maintain a categorical di tinction b tween th m. Thi i partl
ba ed on th comm ense ob enation that different individual can har the arne
per p ctive or know l dge and therefore that orne degr e of obj ctivity i attain-
able. A good exampl of thi i prO\ided b our language kill : th fact that one
language can be int lligibly translated into another i e\idence that obj tivity exi ts
at orne level. and that knowledge i m or e than entirel p r onalized Laudan
19 1:1 4 · :\ewton- rnith 19 2 . Another e ample derive from th projectil
poin not d aboYe. Although archaeologi t do not view proj ctil point olor a
a fact they all at l a t hare a recognition of proj ctil poin th m lve a facts.
Incidentally a er thinking up the e ample of color a a pot ntiall m aningful
fact pertaining to proj ctile point I d cid d to ch ck thi id a with Bob El ton.
H i a lithi ar ha ologi t who ha work d in th White-Knit ho hone region
includinP t orne of their chert quarri e . Although he v a awar of additional
ethnographic upport in Great Ba in m\-thology for the plausibility of thi hypoth-
e i th only patterning in the color of projectil points h wa aware of i r lated
to di.stan from lithic ource : more white proj ctile points are found n ar ource
of whit h rt, and more black one near ob idian quarrie . olor in other v ord ,
i only a p rtin nt fa t about proj ectile point in o far it i corr lat d \vith
lithic m t rial type. in e w already r ecord mat rial type a fact we are then
· eel in ivnoring th color of the e ton too l in our anal . Thi ugge ts
that our ared view o what pertinent fac are rna not be o bad after all.
Arch ologi in thi cannot b ac ed of ov rlooking omething of great
 NEW APPROACHES TO OLD PROBLE MS 11

importan e due to their theoretical bia . Thi indicates that there are a et of
core fac hared within a di cipline that exi t outside our individual ideological
bia e and philo ophical commitment further upporting the moderate po ition.
Moreover, the moderate po ition i nece ar becau e of a rna ivel debilitating
problem ,,ith e trem e relati'i m : ince there are no independent mean to verify
anything according to relati\i rn, there can be no ure way for relativi m to uphold
preci el · thi arne contention. Relati•i m , here defeat it elf.
The moderate po ition al o maintain that there i a true and objective past
although we rna · not be able to recognize it (in the en e of developing ingular
cientific te ts that will reveal it . The point of cience i then not nece arily to
di cover truth an objectiv pa t but to attempt to move increa ingly do er to it.
The \\·a thi i done i not through the critical te ts of po itivi m (proce ual
archaeology emphasized fal ification a the preferred mean of te ting theorie ) .
Instead, it i " ith a procedure that Kelle and Hanen 19 ) have labeled infer-
ence to the be t h)rpothe i : u ing empirical evidence to elect the be t among a
erie of competing h~pothe e . Thi i an effort to mploy a method of cience
that i more ophi ti a ted than po itivi m, not a rej ection of cienc in the general
en . h is then possible to accept this imporwm critique if positivism - that fact and
theory are not independent but are related - without rejecr.inB science. A rejection if proces-
sual archaeoloBJ' therifore does not require a rej ection if science .
It i important to note that ther e are different dimen ion to each of the e po i-
tion and that there are a ontinuurn of potential commitments along each of the
dim n ion . The ideological and m oral dim n ion of relati'i m, for example could
b incorporat d into a moderate po tpo itivi t cientific p r pective . Thi implie
a recognition that our mod rn ideological 'i w do influen e our per pective on
the pa t and that we need to recognize and r emove thi bia if we wi h to improve
our cientific r con truction . Critical archaeoloBJ', whi h i di cu ed by Mark L one
in thi volume i one o the train of po t-proce ual archa ology that adop thi
po ition. In hi formulation critical archa ology doe not reject cience . But it
doe make the entir ly r ea onable r qu t that archaeologi t examine and elimi-
nat their ideologi al bia e before the interpret the pa t . Thi hardl eem
contentious in my ' iew.
n the other hand orne relati'i t m to ha e adopted a po ture of moral
authori · re ulting fr m th ir b lief that id ology and ocial re earch are entirel
in parable B r tein 1976 . They impl that their approach to re earch i
better than oth r b a e it i oriented to' ard recognizing and correcting ocial
inequaliti . ln thi ' iew an)·one who di agree about how re earch hould be
conduct d i in e ence implied to b immoral . Thi i becau e uch re earcher
perp tuate a ocial y tern that ha been identified b th accu er) a wrong.
W hether or not indi,idual re earcher kick their dog abu e their igoificant other
or ontribute to th ubordination of the Third World i not m · oncern here
although ob,iously the e are bad thing . I empha ize in tead that ,..-hiJe the ideo-
logical and methodological dim n ion of ocial re earch, including archaeology
12 DAVIDS. WHITLEY

are linked, whether they can be reduced to a ingle dimen ion i , at be t, a

contentiou i ue. It i related to the fact-theor problem (above) becau e alue
(and thu moral judgmen are kind of bia e that we bring to our re earch (and
that influence our fa ) . The moderate po ition i that the e dim en ion are related
but that we can and n ed to make categorical di tinction between them. A
Alexander ( 19 1:2 I h noted: ocial cience i inherentl ideological, but it i
not only o".
This raise the lar er i ue of where the different train of cognitive and po t-
proce ual archaeologie fall on the po t-po itivi t continuum. I view the cognitive
archaeologi ts a fallin near the moderate po ition ketched abo e ee Whitle
1992). orne of them rna)· believe and perhap even claim) that the are till prac-
ti ing po itivi m but I pect that their actual cientific approach i more along
po t-po itivi t line . But what i mo t important i that cognitive archaeology i at
lea t an implicit rejection of beha,iori m above), et it till maintain a commit-
ment to cientific k:nowled e in one form or another.
Po t-proce uali on the other hand tend toward the other end of the
continuum. It i very important to note however, that none of them to m knov -
ledge) advocate a p ition of extreme relativi m e en though the are widel
believed to do o. M~· pi ion i that orne of the po t-proc uali are per eived
thi wa becau e the~· haYe broadca t trong ideologi al omrnitmen . In thi ca
their criti proc uali ) are guilt;· of the arne conflation a the e po t-proce -
uali : equatin ideolo · and methodology. Mo t po t-pro e uali t in fact, top
hort of extreme relati\i m by claiming that knov l dg of the pa t i ociall r
con tructed not that it i entirel)· ubj ctiYe. Thi allow them to avoid th nihili m
of extreme r lati'i m advocate the importance of modern ideological b lief: in
the cr ation o knowled e and adopt a r con truction of th pa t ba d on human-
i tic rather than cientific principle .
One final point an be made about archaeology and philo oph r in light of th
debate oYer ci nee and the 'proper approach to follm.,· in archaeology. Thi i a
rather age ornment made by Jane Kelle · and Mar ha Han n 19 :6 , and it i
that argum n by philo opher are alway controv r ial. App al to the authority
of a particular philo opher or chool of philo oph annot th n be tak n, alone
a justification or adopting a particular po ition about th r lation hip b tw en
cience and archaeology. Tbi i be a e it i almo t alwa po ibl to find another
philo oph upporting a po ition to the contrar)".

Archaeology and humani m

om ar haeolo i t primarily po t-proce ualis rej cience and ci ntific

e plana · n for orne of the re on di d above a \ 11 due to other prob-
lem th y e in proce ual archaeolog:· ee Hodder 19 2 19 6 . The adopt in
pla , a humani tic per pective " ·hich in general t rm for ground th irnpor-
tan e o the individual in anY analv i or interpretation. Although th re are man ·
 NEW APPROACHES TO OLD PROB L EMS 13

variant expre ions humani tic approache tend to favor a focu on the particular
rather than the general· hi torical canting nc and context in place of cientific
causality· the indi"idual in tead of the group· and interpretation and meaning not
explanation. Many of the e i u e are di cu ed in the paper included here, but I
would like to rai e one of the e at thi juncture. Thi concern an a pect of
hermeneuti becau e thi i a primar · m ethod followed by man po t-proce ual
archaeologi
Interpretation and under tanding rna be generall ub umed under the term
hermeneutics ee Taylor 1971 . Thi i the method (or art) and philo oph of inter-
preting and under tanding central to ·which i the concept of meaning. Although we
all have a commonsen e feel for what i implied b 'meaning", in fact it i a ver, dif-
ficult con ept to define even for philo opher ) . It imp lie an under tanding of
hi torical and cultural context. It require a per pective on individual motivation
and intentions . And it rna) al o ugge t an empathic cognizance of '"'·homever we aim
to tud · uch a prehi toric peopl . To con truct full and adequate} an under-
tanding of the pa t a humani t po ition might hold it mu t include orne en e of
the feeling of tho e who lived in the pa t. It i thi i ue that I wi h to addre .
The beli f that fe lino matt r i viewed b mo t people a the exact oppo ite
of cience. Going ba k to Plato, D e carte and Kant , th argument ha been made
that rationalitY and ultimate!)· ci nee i ba ed on formal logic with emotion
entire! · removed. I uspe it i thi belief that o trongl) et man proce ual
archaeologi again t po t -proce uahst hermeneuti . ci ntific rea on i oppo ed
to emotion a proce uah t mi ht ay and o an concern ""ith emotion - or even
with an under tandin that implie om degree of empathic a' arene - i
a r j ction of cien e. I u p ct that man po t-proc uali ts might make the
am argument be a proce uali ts and po t -proce uali are large! united on
thi point. Th y j t diller on whi h i better: explanation or under tanding. But
I would like to how that the di tinction b tween rationality and emotion i a
fal one. Perhap urpri ingl,· to many thi po ition rna· be upported b r cien-
tific rather than humani ti argumen including th intere ting medical ca e of
Phinea Ga
M ' contention i ba ed on increa ing n urophy iological and experimental
"idence ho"ing that r on and emotion are inextricabl · linked De ou a 1991;
Johnson-Laird and atl y 1992 · Damasio 1994· LeDoux 1994 . Emotion are
m ntal tate in the en that thev o cur within our mind . In fact the are actually
ph r ical be au e thev invoke pecific neurochemical tate . ' Emotional feeling ,
like anxiety or elation are our bodil · reaction to emotion . 'Tactile feeling of
c ur e deriv from external timuli . Emotional feeling include uch ob ervable
ph nom na a hang in blood pre ure heart rate, kin color "blu hing ), and o
on. Emotions th n, are ob rvable· the · are not entire! mentali tic phenomena.
lnd ed w have a common a\ing to de crib our intuition' which i its If an
emotion: it i our gut fe ling . \! e u e thi xpre ion b cau e we do feel emotion
throughout our 'i era including in our tomach Klivington 19 9 .
14 DAVIDS . WHITLEY

Emotion are tied to rea on partly ba ed on the fact that the e facultie are situ-
ated in the arne general area of the brain, the prefrontal cortice . Evidence for
thi fact was fir t brought to the attention of cientist in the last centur a a re ult
of an accident experienced b~· Phinea Gage (Damasio 1994) . Gage had the great
mi fortune of having had a bar of teel ramm ed through his left cheek and out of
the top of hi head on the right ide. urpri ingl ', he ur,i, ed this railroad acci-
dent, but he wa no longer the arne man. By all account , an industriou , courteous
and hard-working youn'-' man wa tran formed, by brain damage, into a ocial
deviant who could not make appropriate per onal and social deci ion or plan for
the future. Thi \Ya de ite the fact that he did not lo e hi intellectual capacitie
in the strict sen e.
Based on thi and imilar ca e damage to pecific parts of the prefrontal area i
now argued to re ult in an elimination of emotion and to thereb) yield an inability
to make proper deci ions concerning ocial and per onal matter " ocia1 know-
ledge"). Thi occur even thou h the injury doe not affect performance on tandard
intelligence t e , mernor;· or problem- ohing in the ab tract en . Emotional capa-
bilitie are required for the proper and complete functioning of human r ea oning
e pecially invoh~ deci ion-making. ·europhy iology tell u that Plato De carte
and Kant were \\TOn . A you ""ill ee, o doe Gary White Deer (below ) .
Moreover emotio are "idel~· under tood, at lea t in part a originating in
adaptive in tin omething that Charle Darwin fir t noted in 1 72 ee Darwin
1965 ). The fight or flight' in tinct - flee or defend our elf when confronted b
an aggre or - i p rhap one of the mo t ba ic of th e , and it engender fear.
But hunger and th refore ub i tence and the reproducti e dri e and therefor e
affective pair-bondin and population gro" ·th) are a1 o in tinct . The r too r ult
in emotion that lead to patterns of human beha,ior that archa ologi have alwa
a umed are both adaptive and rati onal. From thi per pe tive rational beha,ior in
part require emotion . It follo\\· that e plaining rational beha,·ior implie orne
con ideration o human emotions e,·en if onl implicitl .
In my ,-ie" ·, derived from recent cognitive neuro cienc re arch the h rmen eu-
tic per pe ·ve of many po t-proce uali i corr ct: orne con ideration of emo -
tio i r quir d to adequate!~· interpret the pa t. But unlike what rno t of the
proce ual and po t-proce ual archaeologi both eem to a ume thi doe not
imply tha under tanding the humani t goal and cientific explanation , the aim
of cien are nece arily oppo ed. A a number of ocial th ori t and re earcher
have ont nded e.g., Popper 197 · \ eber 1975; Huff 19 2:91 , e 'planation and
under tandin are not antithetical, but mu t be u ed together if adequate interpre-
tation o ocial phenomena are de ir d. europh · iolog up ports thi view.
H re then i the critical point. Processual and post-processual archaeologists alike
har er ived a series of unbridgeabl or near-unbridgeable intellectual and philosophical
posmom, tting themselves discinairely apart. Fact and theor i on of the e· cience
and humani m i another· and emotion and rea on a third. It i true that the
philo ophical cornmitm en that orne archaeo1ogi t make do lead to polarization
 NEW APPROACHES TO OLD PROBLE MS 15

but thi i not nece aril)· required. Moderate positions also exisc. thac. accommodac..e boc.h
the cric.iques qf processualism and ir..s scientific agenda.
One final point i important here. It concerns the relennce of thi largely theo-
retical di cu ion to empirical matter . While we might concede that emotion i
inextricabl · tied to reason it i perhap another matter to argue that we can recon-
truct prehi tori emotion archaeologicall . It cannot be done, at lea t cientifically
man might contend . I argue in fact, that we can recon truct archaeological inci-
dents of emotion at lea t in a limited en e ( ee Whitle 1998b). Moreover the e
recon tructions can improYe our cientific under tanding of the pa t. M argument
fo r thi i too detailed to be re,iewed here and I do not a k that thi a ertion be
accepted on faith at thi time. I ugge t, in tead, that the idea not be rejected out
of hand due to pre-exi ting bia e and belief . A I have attempted to how here
man of the e biase and belief: have been wrong. Other rna be a well .

Archae ology, so c ial theory and c ulture theory

A third important theme in cognitiYe and po t-pro e ual archaeologie inYoh·e an

xplicit concern \\ith social c.heory and mor implicit! ) culture theory . ocial theorv
i a theo · or mod 1 of the tructure and operation of ociety, which i a group
of human li,ing together in orne fa hion. ocial theor · contra t with culture
theor , which a the name implie i a theor · about the nature of culture . A
giYen culture maY be link d to a ociety, but culture i omething differ nt than
ocie · and th two rna · not perfectly overlap. Culture compri e the worldview
rrnbol b lief: and / or norm of beha,ior that peopl hare. In outhern California
' her I live all of th re iden of thi region are part of a ingle Amer ican ocie
but not eYer ·one hare the am culture. The culture of man ' legal and illegal
immigrant farm work r for example i Hi panic, in part reflecting their recent
arrival from Latin America.
Although th re are orne e ·ception the ocial theor underlying proce ual
ar cha olog'· wa pr dominantly structuraljunctionalism. Thi i particular! chara -
teri tic of re earch where ocial th or · wa never di cu ed - the majority of the
ca e - and thi i anoth r of the intellectual problem vvith proce ual archaeology.
Thi problem re ul becau e tructural-functionali m i a model of ociety that v•a
deriv d inductiYeh- to e ·plain th tructure and working of modern Prote tant
Euro-American oci ty. , hould b immediate! apparent the unrecognized e
of our own form of modern ocietv a a model for prehi toric one is problem-
atic. ognitiYe and po t-proce ual archa ologi ts are certainl not the fir t to
recognize the pot ntial probl m of u h an implicit analogy guiding archaeolog-
ical re earch. uch arlier archaeologi including . Gor don Childe con idered
alternatiYe ocial th ori u h a Mar:xi m ee Kohl 19 1 . But c.he emergence qf
cogniti ve and post-proc ual rchaeologies represents a much more widespread rejection
qf structuraljunaionalism "ith a number of different model replacing thi theory
of oci tv. Th re ult i that e rplicit di cu ion of ociaJ theor are ommon in
14 DAVIDS. WHITLEY

Emotions are tied to rea on partly ba ed on the fact that the e facultie are situ-
ated in the arne general ar a of the brain the prefrontal cortice . E'idence for
thi fact wa fir t brought to the attention of cienti ts in the last centur ' a a re ult
of an accident experienced b~· Phinea Gage Dam a io 1994). Gage had the great
mi fortune of having had a bar of teel rammed through hi left cheek and out of
the top of hi head on the richt ide. urpri ingl , he ur\ived thi railroad acci-
dent, but he wa no longer the arne man. By all account an indu triou courteou
and hard -working youn man wa tran formed by brain damage into a ocial
deviant who could not make appropriate per onal and ocial deci ion , or plan for
the future. Thi wa de pite the fact that he did not lo e hi intellectual capacitie
in the trict en e.
Ba ed on thi and imilar ca e , damage to p cific part of the prefrontal area i
now argued to result in an elimination of emotion and to thereb yield an inabilit ·
to make proper deci io concerning ocial and per onal matter (' ociaJ kno' -
ledge"). Thi occur eYen though the injury doe not affect performan eon tandard
intelligence te , memo~·· or problem- o hing in the ab tract en . Emotional capa-
bilitie are required for the proper and com plete functioning of human rea oning,
e peciall invohino d ci ion-making. Neurophy iology tell u that Plato, De carte
and Kant were \\TOno.,.., A .you ''ill ee o doe Gar · White Deer below .
Moreover emotion are "idely under tood, at lea t in part a originating in
adaptive in tin omethin that Charle Danvin fir t noted in 1 72 ee Darwin
1965). The fight or fli,"ht" instinct - flee or defend our lf wh n confront d b
an aggre or - i perhap one of the mo t ba i of the e, and it eng nder fear.
But hung r and tl1erefore ub i tence , and the r producti driYe and th refore
affective pair-b ndin and population growth , are al o in tin . Th ' too re ult
in emotion that 1 ad to pattern of human b ha,ior that archaeologi t hav alwa
a umed are both adaptive and rational. From thi per pe tiv rational b haYior in
part requir emotion . It follow that e rplaining rational beha\i r implie orne
con ideration o human emotions e,·en if onl · implicitl .
In my \iew, d riYed from recent cogniti,·e neuro cience r ar h th h rm n u-
tic per pective f many po t-proce uah i correct: orne con id ration of mo-
tion i r quir d to adequately interpret the pa t. But unlik what mo t of the
proce ual and po t-proce ual archaeologi both e m to a ume thi doe not
imply tha der tanding the humani t goal and ci ntifi e planation th aim
of cienc ar nece arily oppo ed. A a number of ocial th ori and re arch r
hav ont nd d e.g. Popper 197 · eber 1975· Huff 19 2:91 explanation and
under tandino ar not antith tical but must be u d together if adequate interpre-
tation o ocial phenomena are de ired. Neurophy iology uppor thi \iew.
Here th n i the critical point. Processual and post-processual archaeologists alike
har r 1v d a series cj unbrid eable or near-unbridgeable intellectual and philosophical
positio . ettin themselves distinahe~· apan. Fa t and theor
i one of the e· cience
and humani m i another· and emotion and rea on a third. It i true that the
phil ophical comrnitmen that orne archaeologi t mak do l ad to polarization,
 NEW APPROACHES TO OLD PROBLEMS 15

but thi i not nece arily required. Moderate positions also exist that accommodare both
the critiques if processualism and its scientific agenda.
One final point i important here. It concerns the relevance of thi largel theo-
retical discu ion to empirical matter . While we might concede that emotion i
inextricabl · tied to rea on it i perhap another matter to argue that we can recon-
truct prehi toric emotion archaeologically. It cannot be done, at lea t cientificallv
man might contend. I argue, in fact, that we can recon truct archaeological inci-
dents of emotion at lea t in a limited en e ee Whitley 1998b). Moreover the e
recon truction can improve our cientific understanding of the pa t. M argument
for thi i too detailed to be re\iewed here , and I do not a k that thi a ertion be
accepted on faith at thi time. I ugge t, instead, that the idea not be rej ected out
of hand due to pre-exi ting bia e and belief . A I have attempted to how here
many of the e biase and belief: have been \-\Tong. Other rna be a well.

Archaeology, so c ial t heory and culture th e ory

A third important them in cognitive and po t-pro e ual archaeologie involve an

explicit concern ·with social theory and more implicitly) culture theory. ocial theory
i a th ory or model of the tructure and op ration of ocie , which i a group
of human li'ing together in om fa hion. ocial theor ' contra ts with culture
theor which as the nam implie i a theor about the nature of culture . A
given ulture rna\· be linked to a ociety but culture i omething different than
ocie and th two may not perfectly overlap. Culture compri es the worldview,
ymbol belief and / or norm of behavior that people har . In outhern California
where I live all of th r ident of thi region are part of a ingle American ocietv
but not ever ·one har the am culture. The culture of man legal and illegal
immigrant farm worker or example i Hi panic in part reflecting their recent
arrival from Latin America.
Although th re ar om ex eption the ocial theory underlying proce ual
archaeology wa pr dominantly strucwraljunctionalism . Thi i particular! charac-
teri tic of re arch wh re ocial theor wa never di cu ed - the majority of the
ca e - and thi i an ther of the intellectual problem with proce ual archa ology.
Thi problem re ul because structural-functionaL m i a model of ocie that w
d rived inductive})· to e plain the tructur and working of modern Prote tant
Euro-American ociety. A hould be irnrn diatel apparent the unrecogniz d u e
of our own form of modern ociety a a model for prehi toric one i problem-
atic. ognitiv and po t-pro e ual archa ologi are certain! not th fir t to
recogniz the pot ntial probl m of uch an implicit analogy guiding archa olog-
ical re arch. uch arlier archaeologi in luding . Gordon hilde con idered
alternativ ocial th ori ch a arxism ee Kohl 19 1 . But the emergence if
cognitil-e and post-pro sual rchaeologies represents a much more widespread rejection
cif struauraljunaionalism with a number of different model repla ing thi theory
of oci tv. Th result i that explicit di cus ion of ocial theor · are common in
16 DAVI D S. WHITLE Y

thi literature. Equally importantly fo r the tudent , thi literature pre uppose a
familiari ty with the peciahzed jargon of ocial theor , which i formidable.
This is not the place for a detailed di cu sion of different ocial theorie ( ee
tra er and Randall 19 1 · and Gidden and Turner 1987b, for review ) , but a
few ummary poin are in order tar ting with a brief de cription and critique of
tructural-functionali m. Thi i nece ar y to explain why man cogniti\e and post-
processual archaeolo i ha,·e ought alternative . ln tructural -functionali m ociety
i con id ered tructured or organized in a fa hi on analogou to an organi m : all
parts (like the organ in ~·our body work together tov ards the good of the whole .
(Thi o-called or anismic metaphor fo r ociety wa e entuall replaced b a
y tern m etaphor. The term w re changed but the model wa largel the arne) .
While thi eem r onable enough or at lea t debatable) , the real problem for
the archaeologi t tud)ing non-we tern traditional ocietie re ult from two other
characteri ti of tructural-functionah m . Fir t , b cau change i cau ed b factor
external to a body or a y em the arne \iew wa applied to their analog a ociety.
Hence there i an emph i on emironmental change a the cau e for ocial change
in proce uali m. Thi erve to rob individual human of an control over their
own de tin : han i a condition impo ed on ocieti ou ide for ce not
created within . ond the functions of m odern we tern ociety ar in titution
u ch a politi religion econorni and o on. Becau e we intuitiv I knov that
our ociety function along the line of the e in titution the wer a umed to
appl to the pa t . The problem here i that traditional non-we t rn oci ti in fact
may not be tructured in uch ter m at all .
The b t 'ampl of this cone rn the eparation of politi from religion as
two di tinct · titution . Certainl · u ch a paration exi ts in modern Am rican
ociety. This i b ca e it i a central tenet of our political id ology guaranteed b
our Con ti tution. But historically this eparation v a not e en a traditional w tern
European on : the Prote tant Refor m ation wa all about e tabli hing thi break
and m akin cular political power di tinct from th religiou . (Henc the need to
explicitlv e tablish eparation of church and tate in our constitution . or · thi
eparation to this day ev n a unifor mly European on . Grim 1976 , for example,
ha hown that orne Hi panic atholic communiti a il accommodate a truc-
ture o authority that combine politic and religion and no ontradiction in
doing tructural-functionali m then i a dubiou mod 1 for th kind of oci-
etie that ar mo t commonly tudied b_ · archaeologi . Wh n thi model of oci
was appli d implicitl to the pa t bv proce ual archaeologi th had all the prob-
lems that it create , combin d ,,;th the added problem of not r cognizing that
the problem exi ted.
Th r have been two primar y concer ns in conceptualizing alt rnative to truc-
tural-functionah m. The fir t · the need to avoid the probl mati , implicit analog)
, ..;th w t rn Prote tant ocietie . T h ond i the de ire to foreground th impor-
tan e of individual human actio intention and agenc in cr ating ocietie past
and pr nt. The dominant alter native ha been hi torical -materiali m. Thi i partl
 NEW APPROACHES TO OLD PROB L EMS 17

becau e of i long tradition of intellectual development which extend back to

of Karl 1ar:x in the mid-nineteenth century. It ha man · varian
(Mar:xi m tructural Mar:xi m cla anal i critical theory, etc. ,
making difficult if not impo ible an effor t to provide a quick ummar ( ee
Friedman 1974· Bonte 1979 · Kohl 19 1; 10 - 112 · Kr man ki and Tjaden 19 1·
Alexander 19 2b· Honneth 19 7· Miliband 19 7; and McGuire 1992, for review
of various approache · .
Four points may b empha ized about hi torical -materialism in general term .
The fir t which often i n t ob,ious to American tudent i that it i a ocial and
not a political theor v, and thu that it ne d not entail any particular political commit-
men . econd it model ocietie ba ed on a erie of function , not institution
with the purpo e of analv i preci el r being to define the e function and their
interrelation hip . This make it more ea il applicable to traditional ocietie that
rna· have differed in fundamental way from po t-Reformation Euro-American
Prote tant ocietie . Hi torical-materiali m i therefore, a ocial theor that doe
not pr uppo e an equivalence ben,·een pa t and pre ent ocietie . Third it view
ocial hange primarily r ulting from internal confuc ben een group "'ithin
a ociety rather than du to external influen e . Thi opens the door for human
actor con ciou lv to make their own live and hi tor . Fourth, it can accommo-
dat th vi ' that b lief and ideol gy are more than epiphenomenal· that belief
and ideologi are a ·vely created and emplo ed b ' individual human , and thus
ar important in ocial tabilin: and change.
Thi la t point which implie 'mental phenom ena" like belief , rai e the i ue
of cultur th or · in ar ha ology. ulture theor ' a undev loped and ver implicit
in pro ual ar haeolo : but at ba it ' a b haviori t above : culture i a et
of b ha,ioral norm or m ntal temp late tran mitt d from one individual to the
n xt. One irony of pro ual archa ology i th fact that it attempted to elimi-
nate the normativ a umptions of traditional archaeology mbedded in the notion
that artifa t t -p re ult from mental templat et th normativ iew were
retained in i b ha'i ri t model of culture. Thi logical contradiction appear to
hav been largel implicit, but it wa not entir 1 unrecognized . In a circumlocu-
tion pro e ual archa olo i t r latively earl on eliminated thi contradiction
by expunging cultur from an)· e plicit archa ological con ideration Whitle r
1992:62-63 . Again thi compounded the probl m impli d by the culture concept
with th added probl m o urning that the ' had b en eliminated.
The recognition if th importance if culture is another major theme if cogniti ve and post-
proc sual archaeologies. Fororne primaril th American-trained anthropological
archa ologi like Mark L on in luded her Jame D etz 1977 19 a), and
Tom Huffman .g. 19 6, 1 96 thi con ern i xplicit. For other , notabl Engli h
po t-pro uali who e po ur pr umabl ha been to Briti h ocial anthropol-
ogy wh re culture i 1 a central on ern it i more implicit. till it i revealed
in the c ntral importan th e archaeologi place on ymboli m meaning and
worldview. In a ognitiv ormulation thi i what a culture i : a har d tern of
18 DAVIDS. WHI LE Y

ymbol , value meaning- and belief . Yet the e are not norm the mental templates
and pre cribed patterns of behavior implicit in proce ual archaeology. They are
in tead actively created u ed and changed b individual a they live out their lives .
Thi tie the concept of culture in a general wa to the hi torical-materiali t concern
with belief and e pecially ideolog;·. And it how that it i po ible to emplo a
developed culture the01;· and a ocial theor) in an integrated fashion, unlike the
circum tance in proce sual archaeology w·her e the two were contradictory, and one
had to be dropp d from analy i to make the program coherent.
A number of the paper included here explain and explore ho omething a eem-
ingly intangibl culture can be recon tructed archaeologicall and o I leave that
job to them. But on final clarification need to be made about culture and culture
theory. Thi concern a que tion that I u p ct man might a k: ho" can tern of
ymbol and meanin at once haYe been cr eated u ed and manipulated b individ-
ual human yet till have been ufficientl · hared and patterned to allov their
identification and tudy - e pecially by late-coming out ider uch a archaeologi t ?
The a umption underl)ing thi que tion i that mental entitie like belief: and
ymbol are eith r xed norm that are hared b ever on and therefore poten-
tially ea y to identify and tudj· or thev are entire! idio yncratic and, in e en e,
un tudiabl . A common en e e arnination of our own cultural u e of ymbol tell
u , correctl~· in thi ca e that both of the e extreme ar v.rrong. A cogniti e
culture th ori have been careful to explain ( .g. chn id r 1972:3 the k
difference h r i the on betwe n con titutiv and regulative rule . Con titutive
rule are norm ; the)· are like the algorithm that und erli e computer program .
Once a program i tarted it ''ill run preci el a pecifi d with no room for devi-
ation. Hen the need to debug newly vnitten program : the· do what we tell
them to do whi h i ometime not what we want them to do. R gulati e rul ,
in contra t, ar ceneral guid line or framework . The ar like th rul to th
game of h . The e pecif;· how a gam mu t b pla ed but they do not det r-
rnine how a pecific arne ''ill turn out or who v.rill ,..in.
Thi i hO\'\" cultur wor r • w~ be manipulat d and u d active} . in th pat
and pr nt; and why it can be tudied. Culture i a har d · t m of b li f cu -
tom , value , and o on - mental con tructs all. Like behaviori m ' norm , culture
inBuen e b ha,ior but unlike the e norm it doe n t full r d termine our ph ical
actio Thi i becau e people think decide to change thing and often nough do
thin \\TOno". 'Rule are made to be broken orne a ·. o too i ulture.
And anyone who doe n t belie,·e thi ob,iousl ha n 't rai d childr n or th m-
eh· ever b en a teenag r.

Po tmoderni m and po t tructurali m

The final per pective that i en in orne cognitive and po t-proce ual archaeo-
lo · al approache that warra.n di ion concern po tmoderni m and po t truc-
turali . What are thev? How do they diller if at ali ? And mo t important!
 NEW APPROACHES TO OLD PROBLE MS 19

·hat do they implY for archaeology? The have lightly different intellectual hi to-
rie one primarily French, the other originating in America . The e require brief
explanation before moYing on to their implication of the e position for archae-
ology.
We can begin \\ith postmodernism. Thi originated in American literary critici m
during the late 19.30 and 1960 and it compri e three related i ue : an arti tic and
ae thetic moYement; a critique of moderni m · and a ocial and political moYement
( eidman 1990· Hyu en 1990; Downey and Roger 1995 . Like "po t-proce ual
po tmoderni m i a relational concept rai ing the que tion : " ·hat i the modernism that
po tmoderni m claim to replace? In thi context moderni m is een a the
pen-a i,·e American world,iew for the majorit of the twentieth century. It too
invoh·ed th thr e i u not d above including the Moderni t arti tic and ae thetic
tyle , and th modernization moYement in econorni development, technology and
cien e. Tied to the e i the third component, the ri e of capitali m a a liberating
economic · tern and political id ology. Po tmoderni m challenge each of the e.
The po tmoderni t br ak "ith modern art for example wa aid to begin v.ith
And Warhol and pop art and ever;-thing that follo,.,·ed. In architecture it invoh·e
the repla ment of th "hi h-moderni t de ign of archit ct like Mie Yan der
Rohe - rectangular hi h-rise with rigid gla curtain " for wall - bv the hi tor-
ical eclectici m of ar hit ct uch a Phillip John on combination of Roman
colonnad hippendal pedimen et . on a ingle facade . Po tmoderni m
ocial and political moYement i al o aid to haYe begun during th 1960 "ith
th ounter-culture and political a tivi m that developed at that time. The counter-
culture moYement eJI.'Plicitly challenged the preYailing o ial and culture order of
th mid- entury, mo t importantly in term of i u lik life- tyle choice and
rnore and moral . Right or \\Tong it cau d people to critical} r examine their
live in way that had not been common to o man , pre,iou 1 . Th meaning of
life ha b~come an i ue of common ocial con ern, rath r than imply a meta-
ph · ical problem intere tin to onh- a elect few eidman I 990).
On of th m ore prornin nt pok men for th po tmod rni t moYement Jean-
Fran oi Lyotard 19 4 h chara terized it a incredulity toward metanar-
rative . BY thi he mean k ptici m toward if not rejection of) our predominant
ocial political and int ll ctual th orie and beli f . ob,iou ly thi in lude a chal-
lenge to cience a our pre-eminent mean of obtaining knowledge. While many
merican archaeologi then tend to ee po tmoderni m primaril ' a an intellec-
tual debate about the ,-alidit;· of ci nee the implication of the cultural movement
ar al o important. Moreover the-e influen e archaeology in a erie of often unre -
Ogniz d way . Pro e ual archaeologi may feel certain that po tmod erni m ,-.ill
nev r r pla e cientifi ar ha ology. But what they rna not realize i that it ha
already profoundly affe d their liYe and work.
Incredulity towar metanarrative though -pical of the opaque writing tyle
of po trnodernism for e ample calls for a eri of thing . Prominent among th e
i an elimination f mal \VA P whit anglo- axon prote tant ocial and cultural
20 DAVIDS. WHITLEY

dominance. One ob,io archaeological re ult i the appearance of gender ed / femi -

ni t and Third World archaeologie e.g. Conkey and pector 19 4 . The e are
intellectual reaction reflecting a recognition that we tern cience ha been bia ed
toward a white European male per pective . A I think e en proce uali t will
agree, archaeology can b engendered " i thout endangering it, becau e a gendered
per pective doe not in and of it elf require a rejection of cience. Po tmoderni m,
then , ha helped u to recognize implicit bia e in our re earch, and thi can onl
be con ider ed a good outcome of it.
But even m ore fundamental!)· the po tmoderni t cultural movement can be at
lea t partly credited \\ith the appearance of cultural re ource management, which
it elf reAec a wider ocietal accep tance of the importance of non-\ hite non-
WA P, multicultural hi tory· and p rehi tory Recall that, in America , we had
archaeological protection law a early a 1906 . While archaeological alvage ' a
cer tain! condu ed in earlier time the large majority of our law and regulation
till have been develop d ince the earl · 1970 - full) in tep with other po t-
m oder ni t ocial eA-pr ion like the broad -ba ed environmental movem ent
Hyu en 1990 . ince roughly 60-75 per cent of all American archaeologi t ar
now employ d in orne pect of cultural re ourc managern nt the impact of thi
po tmod r ni t trend on our profe ion an hardl b ignor d.
A do ly related po tmoder ni t impact on m erican archaeology invol e
ative Amer i an ee Leone 1991 . Thi i rno t wid 1 en in AGPRA,
the ati ,·e Amer ican Gra,·e Protection and R patriation Act of 1990 . Thi law
refl dev lopment of a re pect for ativ Am ri an and ati e
and an empowering of non -\ e tern hi tory and religion. ne
ion between ar cha ologi t and ati e American due to AGPRA
i an oft n- tat d archaeological belief that 'ar chaeologi need to g t-th ir-act-
together con rnin th Indian . tuall · I think thi mi th main m ag
of AGPR..-\. whi h involve more than ar chaeo logi t- ativ American r lation .
Archaeolo · t need to get- their-act- together concerning o iety a a whole .
Po tmod rni t American oci ty uppor archa ology b ca it fa,·or multicul -
turali m · b it ha de,·eloped an intere t in non_,,, t rn r ligion and hi tor ·
and becau , at orne " idely-felt l vel ther e i a en of colle tiv guilt over th
wa · that · ative Am rican have b en treated hi toricall . Thi i not a ' that ociety
h , rej cted cien and cientific k:nowledg om po tmoderni would
like to b lieve . But if Am rican ciety i given the choice b twe n empowering
. a ·ve American religious belief: which proce ual ar ha olog · claim ar not
worth tudyin and optimal foraging theory the choi e i ob,ious . Proce ual
archaeology lo , hand down.
P, mo ernism then is an induaire cac.eaorization cif our modern worldvie w and society .
B~· thi I mean that the concept ha been d velop d after th fact to de cribe and
unify a erie of ob en ·able cultural and ocial ph nom na in term of a whole .
Thi implie that we can argue about whether or not po tmod rni m i a true br ak
,,;th or an evolution out of moderni m · we can debate ·whether it · an adequate
 NEW APPROACHES TO OLD PROBLE MS 21

cia ification of our exi ting condition ; and " e can conte t how ultimately impor-
tant it rna · be. But we cannot r eallv argue again t the fact that we exi tin a culture
and ociety that do rna.ni.fe t the phenomena that ocial critics de cribe bY the
term po tmodern e ·cept of cour e at orne rarified philo ophical leYel .
American now do con ume more al a per year than ketchup· u hi bar are
common in mo t citi · we drink more '"in than the traditional American liquor
whi ke · and beer· and more peopl \York at horne and liYe in single-parent farni-
lie . imilarly tract hou e are being built to incorporate hi torical architectural
tyle , and aware deY lop r recognize that environmental en itivity can be a elling
point for their deYeloprnen . All of the e ar "po tmoderni t' trend . b·en the
mall old-fa hioned farrnin town where I li e ha been remade in a po tmod-
erni t image. Originall;· gra ed b ' earl r twentieth-centur architecture, due to an
odd geophy ical quirk it wa de troyed in th 1994 orthridge earthquake we are
over twenty mile from the epicenter). The rebuilding effort v•a intended to be
hi toricall · faithful to r capture the original flavor and le of the town. But \vhat
we have gotten in t ad i historical kit ch: Federali t cupola Romane que colon-
nad , and Rococo and Moderne p diment and embelli hments, all combined in
a po tmod rni t m elang . Thi fool all of our town politician , mo t of the towns-
people, and orne of our touri t . But hi torical it i not. It i po tmoderni t to
core. Fillmore - Po tmodernist capital of entura Coun " i the new motto
I haYe ugge t d for th town. -\nd thi point to the fact that whether we like ir. or
not, we are all posr.modernisr archaeoloaists. rauments to the contrary are simply quibbles
about difinir.ion . Thi may urpri e man ar ha ologi , much like Monsieur Jordan
in Molier Le Bouraeoi Genr.ilhomme who di OYer , after forty ear that he ha
alwa · be n p akin pro e .
Thi i not to imply that there i no and potential} hould not b , conte ted
terrain b t\,. en pro al and po tmoderni t approache . The more challenging
a p ct of po tmoderni m to archaeology a if AGPRA i not enough invoh·e
intellectual oppo ition to cien e te hnology and deYelopment. Thi i wh re
th battl lin are drawn. Manv po tmoderni t ocial criti contend that moderni rn
incorporat d th beli f that ocietie were on the road to emancipation due to
cientifi progre · that te hnolog} industr and capitali rn would provide the ba i
for rational and just oci tie mark d by incr a ing wealth and per onal freedom
for eYer ·on . Thi belief rYed to legitimiz th cientific end aYor thereb rnakin
the acqui ition of cientific knowl dge a nece ar · tep for human progre (Downe ·
and Rog r 1995
Po tmoderni claim that the promi e of moderni m have not been met. Instead
cience has promoted h mony dominan rather than emancipation. The point
to the failure of regional econorni modernization theorie and program in the
Third World and the rapid e ~loitation of the world natural re ource a eviden e
for the heg mon · of · nee and th Euro-Arn rican world. The conclude that
cience and th we t haY not fr ed but in t ad hav dominated and exploited
th r t of the world. Beca e cien e ha fail d a a ocial force and becaus i
22 DAVIDS. WHITLE

knowledge ha been a ource of oppre ion it grand theorie and method need
to be que tioned if not reje ed outright. Anthropology and archaeology are con id -
er ed particularly guilty in the en ice of oppre ive cience . Thi i becau e of their
direct relation hip " -ith non-we tern people and culture (li ing and dead). One
real outcome i that ethni tudie program and departments haYe proliferated at
univer itie even as anthropolog:-· budget have been cut, and departments down-
ized. Thi reflec the conclu ion that alternative mod e of knowledge and m ean
for gaining knmd ed e, should be explored and adopted to replace those of a
morally bankrupt ,,.e tern cience ( eidrnan 1990).
o far I have em ph ized po tmoderni m. ide from the hi tori cal logic of thi
pre entation I did thi for a purpo e. Thi i to counter the preYailing American
archaeological ' ie" · that po tmoderni m i a European, primaril French phenom-
enon. A hould no,,- be e'ident, po tmoderni m per se derive largely from
Am erica. The Fren h contribution ha a differ nt origin though th French and
American po ition have, belatedly com e together. The French contribution i post-
structuralism. Thi ref! the eneral lingui tic turn" in theorizing that the ocial
cience have taken durin the I t few decade Gidden 19 7 · H -u n 1990 .
Po tructurali i a reaction again t and mov b ond tructurali m th binar '
theor of mind a ciated with U~vi- trau (abo,·e) . Po tstru turah m primaril
originated amon'"' a group of French ocial philo oph r and emioticians, including
Roland Barthe , Ja que Derrida and Michel Foucault, working during th lat
1960 and 1 0 . Po t tructurali m wa at lea t initiall r l influ ntial in th
du to an alternative American reaction again t th tructurallingui ti
ba e of L ' ,i- trau ' work: • ·oam Chom ky tran formational grammar. The earl
appearanc o hom ky work impeded the wide pread a ptan e of L \i- trau
approa h in Am rica, and thereby made le r l Yant th ub qu nt Fr nch critique
of it). Alth u,_h different po tructurali t haY e pre d diY r 'iew thr e ke
face of th po t tructurah t perspecti,·e are the fo llowing.
Fir t po tru turah m build on tructurah m con pt of decent ring th
ubj e . For tructurah thi meant that th m eaning of communication lie in
th tructure a me age e.g. an oral myth b au thi tructur ref! ct a
binar;· tructure of the mind that the m;'th -te ller i unawar of. For po t truc-
turali thi arne decentering i tak n to imply that th auth r r originator of
ommunication i eparated from i me age. ommunication occur
and ometim in oppo ition to the o t n ible intent of th p r on
in ti atin the me a e. Thi en·e to delegitimize th authority and po ition of
th author, and the idea that there are ingle m aning in communication in general.
ond, all communication i tak n a t xt analog. inc all human ph nom na
pe ch , beha,ior, ritual, and material cultur communicat m ag in om ' a
a " :x.-tual analy i approach to material culture ha develop d · hen e reading the
p t Hodder 19 6 .
Third, deconstruction ha been adopted a a primar · m ethod of anal · i . Thi i
a m thod of di cour e anah- L and it reflect n"·o belief . Th mor fundamental
 NEW APPROACHES TO OLD PROBLEMS 23

i that exi ting theorie interpretation and explanations are ba ed on underl~ing

a umption and pre uppo ition that are o ba icall wrong that they cannot be reha-
bilitated and recorurrucc.ed . In tead the mu t be deconstructed tarting at the very
beginning. The additional belief i in the fundamental ambiguity of communication.
Truth and meaning are created internal to a text, and do not exi t outside it. ince
everything i a text a reading or interpretation of a text create another text the
reader ' under tandin of the reading, the meaning of which i another text, and o
on in a elf-perpetuating piral) . There i no truth, authority or even rational and
e ential elf in thi \iew, because all ha di ipated into the context of text. Text i
bv· its nature fragrn nted and characterized b , a pluralit · of meaning . Text are
dynamic proce e and o too then i th proce of their interpretation ( taton
19 7). From this \i w of fundamental ambiguitv po tmoderni m' 'incredulity of
IRetanarrative abo,·e deri,·e . The political implication of the r jection of the
metanarrative of cien e and of cientific knowledge a] o deri e from belief.
Th relation hip of po tructurali m and po tmoderni m wa , at lea t initially
ambiguou . V hat app ar to be mo t important, at thi point, i thc.t inc the late
1970 po tructurali m and po tmoderni m have been melded particularly in
American int llectual mind . From thi p r pecti,· po tmoderni m per se, i the
ae theti cultural and ocial movement ,,-ith po t tructurali m it intellectual ratio-
nal e. It i e entiall~· thi melded \iew that I pre ented aboYe a "po tmoderni m' .
But Andrea H -u en 1990 ha noted a common mi conception in thi view. A
he carefully how po tructurali m i r all ju t a theor and critique of
mod rni m. It xplain what moderni m i and ha b en; criticize thi · and call
for political and ocial action. But thi call for action actuall · i a call for rej c-
tion: a rej ection of moderni m it value and its approach including progre iYe
ci nc . Littl el i elaborat d and o it i hard to know wher e po tmoderni m
lead be ·ond rejection and critique .
Th intellectual implications of po tmoderni m for archa ology are then orne-
what unclear here I th term in th ynth tic meri an en e to include
po tru turali m though ther have b en om archaeological treatmen of
the approache e author in Tilley 1990· and Tille 1991) it i not et certain
,., here they " -ill go b )·ond an a th tic and intell ctual elebration of multicul-
turali m. On the other hand the ocial implication of po tmod rni m are quite
ob,io and have already profoundl · affected archaeology. EYen the mo t dYed in
the wool proce ual archaeologi t cannot ignore the importance of po tmoderni m
to our profe ion. Thi i becau e po tmoderni m i , itself a prime rationale for
archa ology eYen if it i an ar haeology that i partl ' motiYated and controlled by
atiY American on rn . v tudy the pa t but we cannot live in it and po t-
moderni m i trul~·, th curr nt condition of our live . M \ie"· i that we ignore
po tmoderni m at th r · - o lo ing our profe ion r gardle of " ·hether our intel-
lectual omrnitment i to pro uali m or i alternative .
But hey - my \iew mav b uniqu . Aft r all I liYe in a po tmoderni t
tO\\TI.
24 DAVIDS . WHI LE

Summary

Cognitive and po t-proce_ ual archaeologie ar e unified in their effort to move

beyond po iti"i m . till, there are many differ ent po ition that have em erged from
the rejection of thi main tenet of proce ual ar chaeology. One of the e involve a
rejection of the po-iti'i t model of dence. Thi rejection i endor ed b post-
proce uali and b~· man~· cognitive ar chaeologi t . Po t-proce uali t tend to take
it a a rejection of all cience however, while certain cognitiYe archaeologi t view
it more narrO\d)·· The~· eek alter native m odel of cience that r e olve the prob-
lem of po iti'i m but that allow them to r etain general cientific goal . orne
po t-proc uali al o 'iew the gener al rejection of cience a a call for humani m
and it concern " -ith the particular the hi torical and the empathic. orne cogni -
tive ar chaeologi recovnize the importance of the e hum ani tic con cern but feel
that they too can be a commodat d "'i thin an improved m odel of cien e.
Cognitive and po t-proc uaJ archaeologie have al o incorporated an explicit
r econ ideration o th ocial and cul tural theorie that underlie all o ial cien e .
They 'iew the dominant odal theor · of proce ual archaeology tructural -
functionali m as an inappropriate model for non -" e tern prehi toric ocietie and
look to a variety of different ocial model to replace it. Likewi e cognitive and po t -
proce ual archaeologi t ha,·e explid tl · or implicitl · adopted a cognitive cultur
theory to replac the beha,iori t theory of proce ual archaeology. Man · proc ual
archaeologi finally eem to 'iew the cognitive and po t-proce u al m ovem nt a
a wide pr ad call for po tmoderni m \ie"ing thi a a challenge to we t rn cience
and cientifi knowled e . ith regar d to orne dim en ion of po tmoderni m thi
rna be o. But po tmoderni m al o per tain to the natur of th current ocial and
cultural world that we live in . Thi o ial and cultural ont xt ha alread profoundl
influenc d archaeolo . ·. It i for thi rea on that we cannot ignor po tm oderni m
regardle o how hard "ve mi<::ht try becau e ' live in it .
One final point can be made about the d velopment and m aning of cognitive
and po t-proc ual archaeologie . Thi involve an analogy " i th ph i , and
pertains to the hift from · ewtonian to Ein t inian ph i . One r ult of thi
fundam ntal chan"' in our under tandin of the nature of th uni' r ha invol ed
our n of time and pace . The hav b en r lativiz d m oving them a\ a from
a ewtonian en e of ab oluti m. Thi ha m ad them much m or omplex but,
in th roce , al o b tter able to e plain the empirical world a w know it . I do
not want to imply here that cognitiv and po t -proce ual ar haeologie are a
important an intellectual development a Ein tein th ory of r elati,ity · uch a
ont n ·on \vould be illy. \ hat I mpha ize, in t ad i imply that th · too er v
to rela ·,ize our und r tandin of the pa t. The impl · that knowl dge i much
le - ab olute and certain and that th world i m or ompl x than po itivi m
" ·ould have believ . But th ~- al o promi e to varying d gre that th accom -
m ation of thi relati 'i~· and a re ognition of th world ' complexity "-.ill aid
our under tandin of the p t in fundame n tal wa · . And thi can onl · b n b
all ar ha ologi t a a good goal.
 NEW APPROACHES TO OLD PROBLE MS 25

References

lexander J. C. 19 I Looking or Theory: Facts' and ' alue a the Intellectual Legacy
of the 1970 Theory and ociety 10:279- 292
19 2a Positivism. Presuppositions and Current Controversies: Theoretical Loaic in ociolOBJ'•
Volume 1, Berkeley: UniYer ity of California.
19 2b The Aminomies cif Classical Thouaht: Marx and Durkheim : Theoretical Loaic in
ociolOBJ~ Jolume 2 Berkele~· : Uni,·er i ' of California.
Bern tein R.J. 1976 The RestrucwrinB cif ocial and Political Th eory Philadelphia: UniYer ity
of Penn yh·ania.
Binford L.R . 197 General Introduction". In L.R. Binford (ed .) For Theory Buildina in
rchaeolow·: Essays on Faunal Remain , Aquatic Resources, patio/ Analyses, and •ystemic
1odelinB e'v York: Academic Pre .
Bonte P. 1979 Marxi t Analy e and ocial Anthropology: Revie\ Article' , Critique
cif nchropoloa.r 13 and 14 vol. 4): 145- 163.
Conk · M. \A. . and J. p ctor 19 4 rchaeology and the tudy of Gender" , dvances in
rchaeoloaical Jfechod and Theorx 7: 1-3 w York: Academic.
Damasio A. 199 D cartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain, ew ork: G.P.

ultural meaning v tern ',In R. . hw der and R.G. D Andrade

ed Culture Theor, : ap on find, e!f and Emotion Cambridge: Cambridg

The Express1on cif Emotions in Man and Animals Chicago: Univer it:y of
hicago riginal pubUcation 1 72 .
Deetz J. F. 1977) In mall Thinas Foraorren. ew York : Doubleday Anchor.
19 ultur and World'i w in olonial Anglo-America', In M.P. Leon
and P. B. Pott r Jr. ed The Recovery cif Meanina : Historical rchaeoloBJ' in the Eastern
y...; hington . . : mith onian In titution.
The Rauonalicy cif Emotion ambridge: MIT Pre .
Dov.-n r G.L. and J.D. Ro er 1995 " n th PoUti of Theorizing in a Po trnod rn
Acad em)· Amencan Anthropoloaisr 97:269-2 I.
Earle T.K. I 91 Toward a B ha\ioral Archa ology" In R. Preucel ed. Processual and
Postproc ual Archaeoloai : Multiple Hays cif K.n owinB the Past, enter for Ar haeological
lnve tigation uthern Illinoi Uni er ity at Carbondale, O c ional Paper o. 10.
Earl T.K . and R . Pr ucel Proce ual Archaeology and the Radical Critique .
' 2 :501 - 53
tructuraU m and ulaar MateriaU m Man ( ) 9:444-4-69.
The Mznd's X w cience: History cif the Coanitive Remlurion ( econd
lew ork: Basic Boo .
Gidd n A. tructuraU m Po t - tructurali m and the Production of Culture". In
and J.H . Turner ocial Theory Todax tanford: tanford Univer ity.
. and J.H . Turner 19 . Gidden and J.H. Turner (ed

Public Ritual and Drama in onto Fe, ew 1exico

Ithaca:
Hodder, I. ( 19 2) -Theoretical Archaeology: A Reactionar iew ', In I. Hodder ( ed. )
Symbolic and crucwr 1 ArchaeoloBJ , Cambridge: Cambridge UniYer ity.
- - ( 19 5) 'Po t-Proce ual Archaeology' Advances in Archaeolo9ical Method and Th eory
:1 - 26 :'\ew Yor ·: Academic Pre .
- -( 19 6) ReadinB che P. sr: Cu rrent Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeolo8J. Cambridge :
Cambridge Uni,·er it~··
- - ( 19 7b) Fore"·ord"'. In Re-Con cruainB Archaeolo8J: Th eor_y and Practice , b M. hank
and C. Tille~·, Cambrid e: Cambridge Uni,·er ity.
--( 1991) 'lnterpreti\·e Archaeology and Its Role", American Antiquity 56:7- 1
Homan G.C. (1 7 "Beha,iori m and After". In A. Gidden and J.H. Turner ed ) Social
Th eory Tad) ·, ranford: tanford Uni,·er ity.
Honneth, A. 19 Critical Th ory". In A. Gidd n and J.H. Turner eds Social Th eor_y
Today tanford: tanford UniYer in·.
Huff, T. E. ( 19 "On the .'v1ethodology of the ocial cience : Review E a ', Part II'
Philo ophy o che anal dences 12: 1- 94.
Huffman, T.. ·. I 6 "Cogruti'"e tuilie of the Iron ge in outh rn Africa', World
95.
Crocodiles: Power and o_ymbolism in ncient Zimbabwe Johanne burg:

Hyu n .\. 0 "Mapping the Po trnodern" . In ]. . le and r and eidman ed

onecy: Contemporary Debates, Cambridge: ambridg UniYer i .
John on-Laird. P.. '. and K. Oatle)· 1992 ) ' Ba ic motion rationaL and folk th or
C nl[i n nd Emotwns 6:201 - 223.
Ke in , R. I "Theorie of Culture" nnual Review cif Anthropolo8J 3:7 3---97 .
Kelle;·, J.H . and M.P. Hanen 19 Archaeolo8J and the MethodoloBY cif cience Albuquerque :

ed. Th e cience cif the

Kohl P. L. MateriaL t Approache in Prehi tor ' nnual Review cif nthropolo8J
10:
Ko lyn .M . and 0. Koenig 1992 Hin Mind: Th e ew Co9nitive 'eurosciences ew York:
Free Pr
Kr;· mans.ki H .J. and K.H . Tjaden 19 I Th hi tori -mat riali ti th or ' of oci tal
d ,. lopment . In H . er and . C. Randall ed
tr n lntroduaion to Th eories cif
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
La The P udo- ·ence of cience?' Philosophy cif the ocial ciences

L DolLx, ]. 1994 Emotion emor;- and the Brain cienc!ftc merican 270:50-57.
Lee R.B. and I. De\ ore ed 196 .llan the Hunter Chicago: Aldin
L on orne Opinion About Re overing Mind mer ican ntiquity

Materiali Theon and the Formation of Que tions in Archaeology , In R.

Preucel ed. Processual and Postproc ual Archaeolo9ies: 1ultiple Ji ays cif Kn owinB the Pasr
enter for Archaeological Ill\·e tigation outhern Illinoi Univer i ' at Carbondale
Occa ional Paper , ·o. 10.
L~·otard, J.F. 19 The Postmodern Condition , Minneapoli : Univer ity of Minne ota.
 NEW APPROACHES TO OLD PROB LEMS 27

Manica P.T. 19 7 -~ History and Philosophy cif the Social Sciences, Oxford: Basil Blac rwell.
McGuire R. H. ( 1992 A Jfarxist ArchaeolO[J)', Orlando: Academic.
Merton R. 1949 'On ociological Theorie of the Middle Range" American Sociolosical
Re view 16 .
Cl Th eo9·

Relativi m and the Po ibility of Interpretation' . In M. Holli

eds Rarwnality and Relati vism , Oxford: Ba il-Blackwell.
Ortner . B. 19 4 'Theor;· in Anthropology ince the ixties" Comparative Studies cif Society
and History 26:126-166.
Patter on T. C. 1990 orne Theoretical Ten ions within and between the Proce ual and
Po tproce ual .\rchaeologie ',journal cif Anthropolosical ArchaeoloBY 9:1 9- 200.
Pe ble C. . 1992 "'Rooting Out Latent Beha,iori m in Prehi tor ". In J.-C. Gardin and
. . Peebl ed Represenc.ations in ArchaeoloBY Bloomington: Indiana UniYer itv.
19 2 Objeai~·e Knowledse: An Evolutionary Approach Oxford: Clarendon.
1991 Th Phi lo oph · of Archaeology . In R. Preucel (ed.) Processual
and Postprocessual ArchaeolO[Jies: Multiple Ways cif Kn o·winB the Past, Center for Archaeo-
logical In,· tigations outhern Illinoi Univer it)' at Carbondale, Occa ional Paper
No. 10.
R ed E. . 19 Beha,iori m on ciou ne and the Philo oph · of P ychology
Philosophy?[ the ocial ciences 11:477-4 4 .
chiffer M.B. 1976 Behavioral Archaeolosy ew York: cademic.
chmidt P. ed. 19 6 The Culwre and TechnoloBY cif tjrican Iron Production Caine ' ille:
of Florida.
'" \<\'hat i IGn hip ll bout? , In P. Reinig ed. ) Kinship wdi in
the Jforsan Cemenniel Year Wa hington, D. . : Anthropological oci ty of Wa hington.
eidrnan . 1990 ubstanti,· Debate : Moral Order and ocial Cri i - Per pective on
Modern Cultur . In J. . le ander and idman ed ) Culture and ocie9·:
Contemporary Debates ambridg : Cambridge Univ r ity.
hanks M. and C. Till Y 19 a Re-ConsrructinB ArchaeoloBY: Th eory and Practice, Cambrid e:
Cambridge Univ r it;·.
- 19 7b ocial Theory and .1rchaeolO[JJ·, Cambridg : Polity.
taton D.F. 19 7 on-Text and ub-Te t. In D.F. taton (ed . Literary Th aries

Basin - Plateau .4borisinal ociopolitical Groups, rnith onian In titution

Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 120.
tra er H. and . . Randall e ) 19 1 An lnrroduaion to Theories cif ocial Chanse, London:
e an Paul.
Interpretation and th cienc of Man', The Re1ierv cif Metaphysics 25:3- 5 I.
19 0 ReadinB .lfac.erial Culture: tructuralism, Hermeneutics and Posc.-
Oxford: Basil Bla kwell .
- - 1991 .lfateri 1 Culture and Te_r: The Art cif mbiBuity, London: Routledge.
Toulmin 1977 From Form to Function: Philo oph and Hi tory of cien e in the
1950 and 'ow Daedalus 106 3 :143- 162.
Trigger B. 19 ' .\rchaeolog)· at the ro road : What' w ? Annual Re~·iew cif
nc.hropolO[J)' 13: 5- 3
28 DAVIDS . WHI LEY

Weber, M . (1975 Roscher nd K.r ies: The Lo9ical Problems if Historical Economics, tran l. G.
Oake , ·ew York : Free Pre .
Whitle , D.. (1992 Prehi tor:· and Po t-Po itivi t cience: Prolegomenon to Cognitiv
Archaeolo~·, Arch eol ical .11ethod and Theory 4: 57- 100. Tucson: Uruversity of
Arizona .
- - ( 199 a) Arr Ru esrre en Californie: I.: art du chamanes, Pari : Edition du euil.
- - ( 199 b)' Cogn.itiYe . ·euro cience , hamani m and the Rock rt of ative Califorrua ',
Anthropoloay if Consciousness (forthcoming).
Wyue, A. ( 19 .. Epi temological I ue Rai ed by a tructurali t Archaeology' . In
I. Hodder ed. .r mbolic and tructural ArchaeoloBJ, Cambridge: Cambridge Un.iver ity.
- - (19 Sa) Between Philo ophy and r cha ology", American Antiquity 50:4 7 -490.
- - ( 19 Sb Putting haker Town Back Together: Critical Theor in Archaeology , j ournal
if Anc.hropolOfjl al ArchaeoloaJ· 4: 13 3- 147.
Yoffee, . and A. herratt ed 1993) Archaeolo9ical Theory: H'ho ets the A9enda?,
Cambridge: Cambridge Un.iYer itv.