Carke_1973_Archaeology the Loss of Innocence

8/12/2019 Carke_1973_Archaeology the Loss of Innocence

1/13

~ rchaeology the loss of innocenceD V I D C L R K E

Wep.S &$ Qstye r two mticles dealing with the a i m and relevante of the so-called 'nemfirst was by Professor R i c h r d Watson (1972, 210-15) and the second by,301-4). Wealso pubhhed a r h y David Chke of 'Explanationtson, S A . LeBlanc and C L Redman (1972, 237-9). Here,nd Tutor of Peterhouse, Cambridge, sets out his com'dered viewsarchaeology, some of which he has already dkeussed in h book'Analytical mchaeologyY.linary innocence is the price by a network of changing methodology andef e pali~:&~usness; certainly the price implicit theory. Teaching, now formalized inigh bdd&e 1 5s is irreversible and the prize academies and universities, attempts to con-dense xp ri nt within general principles andence is explicit rules; it is no longer possible either tortheless teach or to le rn the vast body of data andcant thresholds in the transi- complex procedures by rote. Instead, classes ofess through self-coonsciou data and approaches are treated in terms of

and beyond. alternative models and rival paradigms; in-d when the evitably, the comparison of classes introducesdefined by counting and measuring which in turn entails araw material and by pragmatic modest amount of mathematical and statisticalaeology is what archaeologistsdo. methods and concepts.linked This process is also marked by the emergencepartition of of competitive individualism and authority,es and tacit since the individual's living depends on theation and reputation he achievesas a focus in the media orcorrection in the craft style (Alexander, 1964 by innovation and intensive work in a specialist1-60 . field. The politics and sociology of the disci-

Gradually consciousness develops into self- plinar~ nvironment increasingly develop thiscons ss and sophistication erodes the 'authoritarian' state in which each expert has aparadigms of innocence. Self-consciousness specialist territory such that criticisms ofdawns with explicit attempts at self-knowledge territorial observations are treated as attacks-the contentious efforts to cope with the upon personalities. This gradually becomes agrowing quantity of archaeologicalobservations seriously counterproductive vestige of a for-by explicit but debated procedures and the merly valuable disciplinary adaptation byquerulous definition of concepts and classifica- means of which authorities mutually repelledtions. The discipline emerges as a restless body one another into dispersed territories, thusof observations upon particular classes of data, effectivelydeployingthe few specialistsover thebetween a certain range of scales, held together growing body of data.


2/13

ARCHAEOLOGY TH LOSS OF INNO EN Ethe new sophisticates indut riously sub- upon us by the consequences of thetheir discipline; each group deepens (Clarke 1970, 27; 197zb, 7-10).ecialist cells by wncentrated research, In the new era of critical self-wnsciousnesbthe discipline rewgnizes that its domain is smuch defined by the characteristic fonns of its

reasoning, the intrinsic nature of its knowledgeand information, and its competing theories ofconcepts and their relationships-as by theelementary specification of raw material, scaleof study, and methodology. Explanation,interpretation, wncepts and theory becomewmmon central topics of debate and develop theesenti l significance of archaeological logic,epistemology and metaphysics. I t is apparentthe that archaeologistsneed to know aboutknowingand the limits of what they c n and cannot

form or national wntext. Self- know from the data and to know this by criticalarchaeology has become a series of appraisal, not simply by assertion. Demoraliz-ing but fundamental questioning develops-given what we now know about the limitationseducation systems and wit regionally of the data, concepts and methods, how do weed bodies of archaeological theory and know what we appear to know reiiably? Giventhat many explanations, models and theoriesmay ll be sirnultaneously appropriateat manydifferent levelsand in different contexts, how dowe choose between them? The astringentscrutiny of articles of faith and the burden ofchoice indeed represent an ordeal by fi re-apainful refinement in the critical fiame.The needs of teaching emerge as one of themain disciplinary propellants into the spaceof expanding consciousness-student andamateur provide the fuel, research sparksignition and the disciplinaryelders monitor anddirect in a series of contradictory instructions.ding of its internal structure and the new environment deveiops s students andof the external environment. Focus amateurs of n ever-widening backgroundemerge in increasing numbers and archaeologicalunits of a11kinds multiply outside swellas inside the old Euro-American centres. Fromthe Antipodes to Africa the old regionally self-centred 'colonial' wncepts are severely chal-lenged and their weaknesses gravely exposed inthe wider general debate. Question leads tounrest, freedom to further self-consciousness&stations. If the t revolutionfrom wnscious- andthought about thought, s he unformulated

aio self-wnsciousness is mainly technical preceptsof limited academic traditions givew yd threshold is largely a philoso- to clearly formulated wncepts whose veryical andtheoreticalonebrought formulation leads to further criticism and more


3/13

4 A A N T I Q U I T Ydebate (Alexander, 1964, 58). The rate ofchange becomes as disconcerting as the un-certainty, insecurity and general unrest-noone c n deny the high price of expandingconsciousness.It is as unrealistic to ignore this contemporarycontext of debate as it is to portray thesechanges as painless moves from historicignorance to archaeological enlightenment;each archaeology is of its time but since manydeplore the time they will certainly be unhappywith its archaeology. The disciplinary system safter all an adaptiveone, related internallyto itschanging content and extemally to the spirit ofthe times. Past archaeological states wereappropriate for past archaeological contexts,and past explanations were very much relatedto past archaeological states of lcnowledge (e.g.short chronologies) and our own are no better inthese respects. However, formerly adaptivequalities frequently become disadvantageousvices in new environmentsand if archaeologicaldevelopment is not too closely to resemblegenetic ageing, with its dramatic terminus, thenthere has to be a critical and continuousmonitoring process to regulate development.Otherwise there is an accumulation of errorsand a build-up of multiple failureswhich woulddemand a simultaneous spasmodic correctionof global proportions. In the extreme case,formerly adaptive, traditional archaeologicalpositions can evolve in the new environmentinto monofocal, monodimensional and myopicspecialization, conformist authoritarianism,academic regionalism and individualism,archaeological isolationism and chauvinism;the attributes of a doomed race of disciplinarydinosaurs.TH N W NVIRONM NTThe transition of archaeology from nobleinnocence to self-consciousness and critical self-consciousness has been artificially condensedwithin such a spasm of an unusually abrupt andsevere kind Historical and technologicaldevelopments have coincided in a remarkablyrapid change in disciplinary environment androntent in the decades following World War 11ompressing these phases of transition within

the span of sworking life-time, from the 1950sto the 1970s. The World War itself was notwithout signicance in this social and scientificrevolution. Extemaliy, neighbouring disciplineswere transformed by interrelated spasms whicherupted in the New Mathematics, NewBiology, New Geology, New Geography, NewSocial Studies, and the New Architecture.Intemally, the number and variety of archaeo-logical amateurs, students, teaching-st ,university departments, research units andexcavations have globally doubled or trebled incomparison with the 1930s. Simultaneously, themajor technical developments of wartimeintroduced fresh archaeological potential, rang-ing from heavy mechanical excavators to newunderwater and aerial equipment, throughapplied mathematics to operational research,computer electronics and atomic physics.quantitative and qualitative technical and socialrevolution quietly transformed world archaeo-logy in a series of almost imperceptible piece-meal changes.

These crucial decades have seen not only theemergence of new men, new methods and newequipment but more men, methods and equip-ment in a greater variety than ever before. Newobsemations, new ideologies, new philosophiesand therefore new aims uncomfortably jostleearlier ones-the new scepticism, uncertaintyand insecurity painfully chafe the traditionalsecurity of innocence and the comfortingconfidente of habitual operatio*.Many archaeologists will be unwilling to facethe chalienge of the new situation and mayeither entrench thernselves in traditional posi-tions or retreat within the logically imperviousbastion of the freely creative artist. However,although these reactions are understandablethey are based upon two quite mistaken beliefs;that we c n indefinitely avoid the challenge ofnew conditions by. retuming to prirnitiveparadigms; and that the deployment of artistryand imaginative creativity have no place amongstthe new materiais and new approaches. Byretreating within traditional forms it is alwayspossible to alleviate but never to banish the freshburden of new decisions (Alexander, 1964, 1060 . new environment develops new materiak


4/13

neutron activation tech-

logical measurementthe many isotope

mmations has introduced a

LOSS OF INNOCENCE r .awelcome precision and a proper apprda a~derror, facilitated the testing of predictionsdabove all, such measurement structures h wrevealed new empirical relationships andgenerated fresh theory-new problems.The realization has also dawned in archaeo-logy that mathematical methodology, a massivefield in itself, provides many new possibilities.The appreciation that these methods arelanguages of expression and deal as much withorder and relationships as magnitudes hasintroduced almost every branch of mathernaticsinto archaeological contexts-from mathe-matical logic, to axiomatia, set and grouptheory, vectors, topology, probability, statistics,boolean algebra, matrix algebra, n-space geo-metry, numerical taxonomy, error andonfidente estimates, combinatoria, linearprograrnming, garne theory, optimizationmethods, location-ailocation techniques andmany more (Clarke, 1968; Gardin 1970;Kolchina and Shera, 1970; Hodson Kendaiiand Tautu, 1971).These reinforcing developments in excava-tion, analysis measurement and manipulativemachinery give added scope to the two othermajor fields of methodological innovation-explicit model-using and experimentation, andthe comprehensive theory of systems andcybemetia (Clarke, 1972b, 29-44 .Nevertheless, even amongst t is explosivev riety of new methodology two developmentshave emerged with repercussionswhich poten-tially dwarf the others-computer methodologyand isotope chronology.Computer methodology provides n expand-ingarmoury of analogand digital techniques forcomputation, experimentation, simulation,visuai display and graphic analysis. Thesesense-extending machine tools can either beused liie the microscope to examine the finestructure of low-leve1 entities and processes inminute detail, or like the telescope to scrutinizem s i v e ensembles over vast scales. They alsopmvide powerfu hammer-and-anvil proceduresto beat out archaeological theory from intransi-gent data-thus on one hand these methods canbe used to construct models and simulate theirconsequences over a range of states, identifying


5/13

NTIQUITYtest-conditions-on tne other hand the computermay be used to analyse and test real data andmeasure our expectations under the modelagainst the reality.

Whilst a11thinking archaeologists must sharesevere reservations about what has yet beenachieved with the aid of these tools, the fault iswith the uncertain archaeologist and his shakyconcepts, not with the machine; the newgeneration of archaeologicalcraftsmen have yetto master the potential of the new tool. Indeed,a major embarrassment of the computer hasbeen that it has enabled us to do explicitlythings which we had always claimed to dointuitively-in so many cases it is now painfullyclear that we were not only deceived by theintuitions of innoce-but that many of thethings we wished to do could not be done orwere not worth doing and many unimaginedthings can be done; we must abandon sarneobjectivesand approachothers in differentways.Harnessingpowerful new methodologicalhorsesto rickety old conceptual carts has proved to bea powerful but drastic way of improvingarchwlogical theoreticalconstructsby elimina-tion.

The chronological consequences of isotopeand other dating methods, especially theCarbon-14, Potassium-Argon, and Uraniumseriestechniques, have infiltrated archaeologicalthinking n amannerwhichhas largelyconcealedthe significance of their repercussions. t hasbecome increasingly apparent that the archaeo-logist must now think directly in terms of thekinkedand distorted timesurfacesof the chrono-metric scales which he actuaily uses-Carbon-14time, Potassium-Argon time, and typologicaltime-where the error factors are almost moreimportant than the scale graduations. Inanother aspect, the transformation of archaeo-logical time from ultra-short to very longchronologies has had unsuspected and little-discussed consequences for archaeologicalmetaphysics, entity concepts, processes andexplanations.

Under the ultra-short chronologies, archaeo-logical time was confused with historical timeand seemed packed with data and events; large-scale phenomena appeared to take place in swift

interludes-hence the prevalence of invasion-explanations. This situation is precisely equiva-lent to that underlying the catastrophetheories of 18th-century geology and we shouldnote the connexion between time scale,explanation and theory, since it is now exceed-ingly doubtful that the archaeologist cancontinue to use the old stock of political,historical and ethnic explanatory models in thisdirect way. Thus, to interpret the FrenchMousteriansequence, of more than 30,000yearsduration, in terms of the acrobatic manoeuv-rings of five typological tribes is tantmount toan attempt to explain the Vietnam war in termsof electron displacements. Political, historicaland ethnic entities and processes of thesekinds cannot yet be perceived at that scale inthat data, even if they then existed and evenwith our latest sense-extension and detectiondevices.

fundamental lesson emerges-the consequences arising from the introduction of newmethodologies are of far greater significancethan the new introductions themselves. Wemust move from the traditional model ofarchaeological knowledge as a Gruykre cheesewith holes in it to that of a marse susvension ofinformation particles of varying size, not evenrandomly distributed in archaeological spaceand time. The first thing we may deduce fromthis revision is that many of our taxonomicentity divisions are defined by lines drawnthrough gaps in the evidence and zones ofgreatest ignorante; this does not make thesetaxa invalid but it does gravely alter whatconstitutesmeaningful manipulation and expla-nation of such entities. Now although theseproblems become less severe with later materialthey tend to become more subtle and they neverentirely disappear. We must face the fact thatalthough they may with care be mapped on toother disciplinary domains, archaeologicalobservations, entities, procesws and explana-tions remain archaeological animals and theyare a11 scale, context, sample, paradigm andultimately metaphysics dependent.

The huge content of the new and newlyextended methodologies is self-evident. How-ever, it has not been sufficiently grasped that,


6/13

ARCHAEOLOGY: T H E L OS S OF I N N O C E N C Ethey are, these methods form only it is hardly surprising that groups of practi-the new environment tioners have broken free from traditionalportant in their own conformityand realigned themselvesaround theew informationthey provide and study of the special problems of limitedtual consequences. dimensions of the new evidence. Althoughtheirillarymethods do not alter the roots are old, we suddenly have a number of

ture of the discipline and we must vigorous, productive and competitive newparadigms which have condensed around themorphological, anthropological, ecological andgeographical aspects of archaeological data(Clarke, 1972b, 6-53 . Nevertheless, diversethough they may be, they are significantlyinternational and share much of the newmethodology, philosophy and experimental

porary new sectarianism may be theprice for the dissolution of the old disciplinaryfabric but this anarchic exploitation of freedomNm bsmatiOnshe array f new and is symptomatic of the rethi&ing of primarymetmologies have OVer the issues. It is now at least refreshing to findspm&enty years produce a multitude of archaeologists of one specialist interest, one'niq sing' new observations and to detect regional school and one ideology rnaking majorprems ly unrecognized sources of variabilit~ if controversial contributions in otherOnl~theda~tivetabilit~f highly cel'ular logical specialisms and fields cellular isolationional archaeology has success- is no longer possible even were it desirable.d dissipated what might havea1 shock to the entire system m hilosophes The threshold of criticaldisconformit~ o a localized disciplinary self-consciousness is currenflyever, effectiveness cannot being traversed as the inevitable consequence ofrificed to stability, and the social and technical revolution in archaeo-ations,models and theories logy. The old disciplinary system could notly contain, suppress, or accommdatethe accumulation of discordant new informationwithin its structure, so the system has adaptedby exploring a range of new philosophies and

from which will slowly emerge, aftere, those most capable of accommodat-ing both the old and the new information andaspirations compatibly.of the new observations of no lesS The new ideologia and philosophies there-than the explanator~ nd 'Oncep- fore present no simple new orthodoxy butheterodox diversity; the strength of the newarchaeologies, or New Archaeology, is that itintroduces a variety of questions where onlyanswers were formerly proclaimed and disci-rgy, urbanization and plinary exhaustion a certitude. The era ofcritica1self-consciousnesshas therefore dawnedwith the explicit scrutiny of the philosophicalzs In this information explosion assumptions which underpin and constrain

I I


7/13

A N T I Qevery aspect of archawlogical reasoning, know-ledge and concepts; some of the possibledevelopments of these aspects will be touchedupon below (New Consequences).T H E N E W R C H E O LO G YDo these developments represent a 'NewArchaeology' Well of co m e it depends on thepoint of view of the observer and what theobserver wishes to see. However, it does seemdifficult to sustain the view that the character,scale and rapidity of recent change is of nogreater signifcance than that experienced inother twenty-year spans of archaeologicaldevelopment. We seem rather to have witnessedan interconnected series of dramatic, intersect-ing and international developments whichtogether may be taken to define new archaeo-logies within a New Archaeology; whether wechoose to use these terms or avoid them is thenmainly a personal, political and semanticdecision.

We can define a poetwar quantitative andqualitative revolution in the numbers andvariety of archaeological amateurs, students,departments, excavations, equipment andmethods. At first, it seemed these were merelynumerical and technical changes which couldeasily be assimilated. However, the newmethods produced new observations and freshpotential which could not be reconciledwith theexisting disciplinary system. New paradigmsemerged as a response to this situation and nownew ideologies and philosophies are beingdeveloped to reset the new archaeologicalinformation within an appropriate disciplinaryframe and metaphysical field space.

The New Archaeology is an interpenetratingset of new methods, new observations, newparadigms, new philosophies and new ideologieswithin a new environment. I t is not virtuoussimply because it is new; many elements areunsound, inaccurate or wrong but that isequally true of much of traditional archaeology.Nevertheless, some of the new developmentsare unassailable and all of them are explicit,experimental attempts to grapple with, ratherthan avoid, the fundamental problems ofarchaeology a critica1 self-consciousness which

healthilv extends to self-critical self-consciou+-ness, the new archaeology monitoring andcontrolling the new archaeology (LeRoyJohnson, 1972, 374).The financia1 and intellectual cost of thesedevelopments is severe and interposes rathersubtle dangers. Traditional onfidente andhabitual d iplinary security cnunble into theinsecurity of critical self-consciousness andprofessional uncertainty, posing the heavyburden of choice within a vastly enlarged con-ceptual arena. Authority seems challenged byanarchy as familiar concepts collapse undertestini traditional guidelkes dissolve anddecisions become more dKcult. New questionsare asked but not always answered. Disreput-able old battles, long fought and long decidedin other disciplines are imported into archaeo-logy to be needlhly refought with freshbloodletting. Even the new methods subtlythreaten to redefine our basic concepts,entities and processes for us; sometimes for thebetter, sometimes or the worse, emphasizing heessential need for clear logical, epistemologicaland metaphysical control of archaeology byarchaeologists-the price of freedom is eternalvigilance (Clarke, 1972a).T H E N E W C O N S EQ U E N CE Sheory of mepts It has become clear thatevery archaeologist has thoughtfully or un-

thinkingly chosen to use concepts of a certainkind-thus committing himself to a.metaphysi-cal position, restricting himself to certainparadigms, to use certain methodologies, toaccept certain modes of explanation and topursue certain airns;at the same time explicitlyor tacitly rejecting other metaphysical positions,paradigms, methods, explanations and aims.In each era archaeologists represent thetemporary state of their disciplinary knowledgeby a metaphysical theory which presentsappropriate ideals of explanation and procedure.But metaphysical systems are not systems ofobsenrations but invented systems of conceptswithout which we cannot think Harr, 1972,1-39).Archaeological metaphysics is the study andevaluation of the most general categoria and


8/13

ARCHAEOLOGY TH L O S S O F INNOCENCEmncepts within which archaeologists think; aeak long overdue (Clarke, 1g72a). Unknowing

devotion to one metaphysical system preventsthe recognition of those of other archaeologists,md critical self-awareness is therefore the firstst p to the comprehension of the position ofothersand theburstingof the bondstied byone sown metaphysical assumptions. Metaphysicalsystems may be invented ensembles and thearchaeologist may be free to choose accordingto whim, since the choices are not betweenright ahd wrong; but judgement can still beexercised in terms of the validity of the conceptsselected, the appropriateness of the ensuingexplanationfor the scale of concept selectedandthen the adequacy and power of that explana-tion thereafter.This approach reveals that archaeologists,old and new, have adopted many quite differentmalyticalconcepts. The historid school havepreferred the imagined historical individual, orp u p of individuals, acting at the personal scalewithin events of a comparable level; appro-priate explanation has therefore been in termsof the states and reasons attributed to theseactors laid out in rational and dispositionalexplanations. The physical school have pre-ferred models ranging in scale from particleclouds to networks and billiard balls, thusdversifying causal and probabilistic explana-tio118 from diffusionwaves in media, to systemicinteraction and invasive displacement. I t isamusing to note that just as invasion explana-tions were conditioned by the metaphysics ofthe short chronologiesand produced a reactiontowards autonomous explanations, so autono-mous explanations become meaninglessamongst networked communities. Indeed thecapacity of qhaeology to reinvent for itselfarchaic explanation structures long abandonednother fields is remarkable-invasion catastro-phism c n be joined by the currently fashion-able autonomous spontaneous generationexplanations and that mysterious phlogistoncivilization.Archaeologicalentities,processesandexplana-tions are bound by metaphysical concepts oftime and space. So we may expect chronologicaland spatial revisionsto be followed by profound

disciplinary consequences. But, the very greatimportante of time and space measurementscales has often led the archaeologist toconfuse the scales used for measurement withthat which is being measured. Space and timeare conceptualt e m elative to the existente ofcomplex phenomena; they exist because of theobserved phenomena and not vice versa. Timeand space are relative to some obsewed system,and a key step in archaeologicalinterpretation isa model approach towards the meaning oftime and space for the inrnates of particularsystems. The mobile Palaeolithic band movingon foot with limited external contacts and anextremely rapid generational turnover presentsa very different time and space surface from theIron Age society with elaborate transport,extensive international contacts and a slowergenerational turnover, even when occupyingthe same territory over a similar timespan. Themeasurement scale must not be confused witthe relationships being measured and, inparticular, forms of explanation should not beinappropriate to the error and graduation rangeof particular time and space scales.

The exposure of archaeological metaphysicsto critica1appraisal allows us the self-consciouscapacity to consider the possibilities of alteringor rejecting current disciplinary concepts infavour of some alternative forrns. Thus, at themoment, archaeology is still a discipline inwhich artifacts, assemblages, sites and theircontents are identified and related as relicts ofcommunities in accordance with rules formu-lated in terms of artifact taxonomies-thetraditional Montelian paradigm. But theseartifact taxonomies are merely systems of ari rules whereby the relation or identifica-tion of the archaeologicalconfigurationsthat areto bear taxonomiclabels sguideandwntrolledby taxonomic postulates. So some practitionerswithin the ecological and geographical para-digms rnight suggest that we abandon artifacttaxonomy as the primary system for organizing,classifying and naming archaeological entitiesand devise some other system of classification,perhaps in terms of landscape and activityunits of some kind. Now, although there is aNeo-Montelian response to this suggestion, the


9/13

ANTIQUITY

is that fundamental speculation at cotraditions-introduces a number of epistem-s exceedingly important if only ological problems. Whatever their status, wethe metaphysical certainly use these theoretical t e m to makeare normally reference and to relate observations. Now somein iined to rethink it. hypothetid entities may prove to be realthings, qualities, or processes and may be

Theory of in omurtion The problerns of partially or completely demonstrated in dueinformation processing and nomenclature bring course (the Wus was just such a concept) butus inio the field of archaeological epistemology others are merely surnmarizing terms-of--the theory of archaeological information conveniente employed to simphfy complex(Clarke, 1972a). This will entail a critical and expressions (the mechanical concept of 'force'sef-conscious concern with the kinds of for exarnple) (Harr, 1972, 91-9). Nowinformation which archaeological methods archaeology has been much vexed by themight yield about the past, together with the problem of whether its hypothetical entities arelimitations and obscurities imposed on the one 'real'; it had been intuitively assumed that theyhand by the nature of the record and on the were so but the technical revolution which hasother by our languages of expression. allowed us to test for their existence reveals thatFT chaeologists have certainly failed to ack- they are structurally very complex and theirnowledge the degree to which the nature of the 'reality' is still a matter of debate. However,archaeological record has imposed itsef upon even should the rea ty of our hypotheticalarchaeological concepts. To a very large extent entities tum out to be of the latter merelyarchaeological referential form, their utility need not dirninish.ifacts' of the Aithough the Montelian paradigm was onlyature of the elements in the samples and their hypothetical mechanism which offered naberrant distributioethe nature of the account of the natureof archaeologicaldata andentities arising in the main from the informa- explanations of its relationship to horninidtion characteristics of archaeological channels behaviour, to be a Montelian under traditional

s largely equifinal, functional groupings, many the information which may be extracted fromthousandr of years deep and hundred of miles the complex, integrated relationships encapsu-


10/13

ARCHAEOLOGY: T H E

appropriate way. After d incethat we will never be able to

e the sites of a contemporaneous siteor, what is more to the point, given our

pecialized hunting and fishing sites ofk d s , like Mugharet-el-Wad.

Whether the last sentencea reasonable speculation depends

the data, partly on the concepts andthe reasoning involved. The criticalarchaeological reasoning

basic importance of

for those conclusions, between

explanations or causes ofobservations. The slippery

L O S S O F I N N O C E N C Enature of the logical aspects of archaeologicalexplanation becomes apparent in the frequentconfusions between the direct causes ofarchaeological observations and the explanation of the mechanism which broughtabout those causal stimuli at a yet deeper level.proper scrutiny of such problems mightallow archaeology to escape from the self-imposed paradoxes and tautologies whichcurrently plague its argurnents. Not the leastinteresting area in this respect would be someclear identiication of the characteristics ofpathological explanations-those which arerejected and yet which appear to use normallyacceptable reasoning on sound data.

At least part of the confusion about explana-tion in archaeology arises from the mistakenbelief that there is one universal form ofarchaeologicalexplanation structure appropriateat a11levels, in a11contexts. Attempts have beenmade to say something which would logicallycharacterize all archaeological explanations butwhich simply succeed in describing, withvarying success, certain modes of explanationused at certain scales, in certain contexts toanswer certain archaeological questions. Afterall, the explanation of the recurrence of acertain house plan may have a logical structureof one kind, whilst the explanation of thcollapse of the Maya or Mycenaeans may havequite another; the explanation of complexevents in sophisticated systems is an especiallyimportant and ill-understood area (Tuggle,Townsend Riley, 1972, 8).

If archaeologicalexplanations exist for manydiTerent purposes, and are of many diierentlogical forms at varied levels in differing con-texts, the appropriateproceduresforjudgingandtesting their accuracy, relevance and logicaladequacy have yet to be explicitly uncovered;we must therefore resist an ill-fitting deter-mination to force the patterns of archaeologicalreasoning within those supposed to hold forother disciplines (Clarke, 1972a). Nevertheless,we c n anticipate some bases for such judge-ments. It has already emerged that one test ofthe relevance and adequacy of an archaeologicalexplanation is the relevance and adequacy of i t s~hypothetical elements. If the hypothetical is not


11/13

A N T I Q U I T Yrelevant to the particular scale or context, as in leaps in archaeological reasoning. Without suchthe 'tribal' explanationsof the Mousterian, then a body of theory these critical leaps do indeedthe explanation fails. Second, severa1 different take-off and become a free-fight of creativ-explanations ma7 still compete for attention andhere, amongst other criteria, it is the explana-tion which derives from or implies the existenteof the more powerful theory which is to bepreferred. At the last, even when an explanationis proven not to be trivial, tautologous, circular,redundant or statistically accidental it alwaysremains 'conventiona19-relative to the state ofcontemporary knowledge, a particular paradigmview and a given metaphysical position.General theory One of the prizes denied to usby the partitioned regionalism and specialismof the Old Archaeology is the explicit realizationthat there is or could be a comprehensivearchaeological general theory. The diflicultywith this intriguing possibility has never been alack of forms which this theory might take andareas within which it might fulminate butrather the conversethe infinitv of kinds oftheory which might conceivably be appropriatefor archaeology and the familiar problem ofchoice, where to search in the infinity? Anearlier response was either to import theHistoricism of Spengler and Toynbee, theDeterminism of Ellsworth Huntington, themodified Marxism of Childe and others. or toreact by rejecting the possibility of generalarchaeological theory and to disappear into thedepths of particular research problems with therapidity of hot stones on snow.Now, this prize may not yet be within ourgrasp but a possibly emerging theoreticalform does now seem distantly perceivable. Wehave seen that the rising interest in archaeologi-cal philosophy naturally leads to necessarymetaphysical theories of archaeological con-cepts, epistemological theories of archaeologicalinformation and classiication and logicaltheories of archaeological reasoning. Here iscertainly a body of necessary but unfulfilledtheory which overlies and permeates a series ofother levels of archaeological theory thattranslate and explain the relationships betweenclasses of archaeological phenomena; it is these

fancy-an irresponsible art forThese other levels of archaeological theorymay be crudely expressed as the steps latent inany archaeological interpretation, relating:I)The range of hominid activity patterns ansocial and environmental processes whic

once existed, over a specified time and area.2) The sample and traces of these I) thrtwere deposited at the time.

(3) The sample of that sample 2) whichsurvived to be recovered.4) The sample of that sample 3) which w

recovered by excavation or coilection.The pairwise relationships between theslevels generates the essential set of predeposi-tional, postdepositional, retrieval, analyticaland interpretive models and theory which iiarchaeologists intuitively employ in the inteipretive leaps from the excavated data to thewritten report, covering the interpretive pr0-qfrom the grave to publication.Predepositimal and depositional themy-coversthe nature of the relationships between speci-fied hominid activities, social patterns andenvironmental factors, one with another y ~ dwith the sample and traces which were at thetime deposited in the archaeological record;largely a social, environmental and statisticaltheory relating behavioural variability to vari-ability in the record, linking levels I)nd (7above.Postdepositionul thory-the nature of therelationships between the sample and traces asinitially deposited and their subsequent re-cycling, movement, disturbance, erosion, tr aaformation or destruction; largely a micro-geomorphological and statistical theory linking2) nd 3).Retrkval theory-the nature of the relationships

between the surviving sample 3) and thecharacteristics of the excavation or collectionprocess which selectively operated upon it toproduce 4); argely a theory of sampling, fieldresearch design and flexible response strategies

unsge,ciied steps which underly the critical linking 3) and 4).6


12/13

ARCHAEOLOGY: TH L O S S O F I N N O C E NC Eizui'ytical theory-the nature of the relation-ships between the observations (4), whichbecome the data, and their subsequent opera-L tional treatment under selective modelling,testing, analysis, experimentation, storage a


13/13

. .

A N T I Q U I T Y? J - - -o region, material, period and culture, although confiation of both sets of evidence and t h e icertainly requiring difFerent particular values appropriate disciplines. The severe problemsfor particular problems. It is this pervasive, and tactical advantages which arise from inte-central and international aspect of archaeo- grating archaeological and historical evidenceogical theory, multiplied by its current weak- emerge s no more and no less than thoseness, which makes the whole issue o major arising between archaeological and physical,importance in the further development of the chemical, biological and geographical evidence.discipline. Indeed, work in text-aided contexts willHowever, there are perhaps three groups of increasingly provide vital experiments in whicharchaeologists who may be expected to be purely archaeological data may be controlled byespecially unwilling to welcome both the new documentary data, bearing in mind the inherentdevelopments and their theoretical conse- biases of both.quences-amateurs, historical archaeologists, Finally, the practical excavator shouldand practical excavators. The feeling that the appreciate more than any other archaeologistvital and expanding corps of amateur archaeo- the degree to which his practice s controlled bylogists will be deflected by a new academic gulf his theoretical expectations, and these shouldis, however, largely a misconception based on a accordingly be appropriate Clarke, 1g72b,professional model of the amateur as an 5-10). Thus with a more explicit theoreticalagricultura1 hayseed or a military buff; we risk awareness the practical excavator may con-forgetting that amateur archaeologists the tribute to a qualitative increase in under-New Amateur? embrace professions in labora- standing rather than simply a quantitativetories, electronics industries, computerized increase in data. In any case, practical men whobusiness departments and technical factories believe themselves to be quite exempt from anyand may have a better grasp of science, mathe- intellectual infiuences are, s Lord Keynesmatics, computers and electronics then their pointed out, usually the unwitting slaves oftemporary archaeological overlords. some defunct theorist Keynes, 1936, 383).

For the archaeologist of later, text-aided and Archaeology is, after all one discipline andtraditionally historically scaled periods the that unity largely resides in the latent theory ofrepercussionsof the New Archaeology are more archaeology-that disconnected bundle of in-subtle than drastic. The new developments adequate subtheories which we must seek toinsist that the historical evidence be treated by formulate and stmcture within an articulatedthe best methods of historical criticism and the and comprehensive system; a cornmon theo-archaeological evidence by the best archaeo- retical hat-rack for ali our parochial hats.logical treatment and not some selective

BIBLIOGRAPHYA L W A N D W ,. 1964. Notes on the synthesis of fonn(Harvard).

D. L. 1968. Anaiytical mchaeology (London).1970. Reply to wmrnent on Analytical Archaeo-logy, Norwegian Archaeological Review 111,25-34.1972a. Review of e x p h t i o n i n m c h a e o l o g yAntiquity =VI 237-9.1972b. Models in archaeology (London).GARDIN,. C. (ed.). 1970. Archologie et Calnrlateurs(Paris).HARRI?,. 1972. Th e philosophies of science (Oxford).HODSON F. R., D. G. KENDALL and P. TAUTU (eds.).1971- Mathematics and th mchaeologrgrcalandhistoricals es (Edhburgh).

JOHNSON,WOY. 1972. Problems in Avant Gardearchaeology, Amenmerrcannthropologkt -v, 3,36615.

KBYNES, J. M. 1936. The general theory of employ-m m t interest and n~on yLondon).KOLCHINA,. A. and Y. smm (eds.). 1970.Statistiko kmnbinatonrye metody v Archeologii(Mosww).TUGGLE H . D., A. H. TOWNSEND and T. J. RILEY.1972. Laws, systems and r-ch designs: adiscussion of explanation n archaeology.Amenkan Antiquity xxxwr, I 3-12.

Documents

Carke_1973_Archaeology the Loss of Innocence