BRUCE G. PRIGGER A history of archacological thought CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Put Bung, ranpingon Sires, Caner, Utd Kington “The Edinburgh Bang, Case xa 2k, UK se Wie aot Set Now Yor, No Soar4z, USA, 7 tums Read, Port Mette, We Sey, Asal Taig de Arc, Bog May Spa Deck Heute, The Waerbun,Cape Tow He, South Af ap /mewcanbge nm © Cambridge Ue rs 989 proctor ay take pce ont sft wren pean of Cee ater Pee pe 98 lst pling 2s int in he Coie Kingdom athe Unies res, Cambedge ri rary Candin Paci a "igor Race fs Gea pr "tice og ansondeey to wi ne rome Cain in ation ata “Tiger Bree Aor fal gh. Tras ec toga ds, san sr sat o hardens st sah 2 (paper) tT Astaclogy~ Hit 2 cog icy “Hi, mn lp nos deg seton6 co smo st ao hardback ‘Sn Sr Sue popeCON NTS List oF ILLUSTRATIONS ‘The relevance of archaeological history Approaches to the bisry of archasleay ‘The environment of erchacslagy Avahaccleical interpretation Challenge genes (Classical archaeology and antiquarianismn The ancient wold The medion paradigm of bstory Development of bora achaclegy Anviquavianism in Northern Europe Recgniton of tone tos The Enlightenment paradigm Scientific aniquarianiom Antiquarianion and romanticion ‘The New World ‘The imps of antiquarianion Boeeacte ‘The beginnings of scientific archaeology a Relative dating The deselepment and spread of Sesndinavian archacsagy ‘The antiquity of umanity Palacolithi archnelay Reaction against evasion “Arthaeslagy in North America Concision4 The imperial synthesis ‘Te rit of rciom Lubbock’ thesis Colonial archaclegy in America acs archacolegy in Africa Archacclegy in New Zealand “Assiralianprevisry Labbe’ lgacy 5 Culture-historical archaeology Difficioniom ‘The Montelian synthesis of European prebictry ‘The concep of eture Kotinna and the calure-iarical approach (Childe andThe Davin of European Civilization [National archacleny (Culture bistavcalarchaclegy in North America “Techical developments Cones 6 Soviet archaeology Archaclegy on aris Russia “Arche during the New Economic Policy ‘The birth of Soviet archecolgy Conslidaton Recent developments Concacons +7 Functionalism in Western archaeology ‘The development of cial anthropeny Environmental fenctionaiom Economic approaches (Childe and Sever arcacceny (Childe as Marsa archacolyist (Grabame Clark Early funcional in she United States Tie conjunctive approach Ecological and settlement erchacelegy Concncons me Begeest aul the New Archacology ‘The explanation of diversity Interscietalcontact [Neo hiericiom ealism and nev Mearsiom Contextual arcacoagy Arcbaclagy sitalf Conelasions Archaeology and its social context ‘The goals of archaclgy Archaea history and wience Relatvis critiques Data colection and empirical generalizations Internal dale Limications of bebasioural inference ‘The achievement of archaclagy Eternal dalegue Fucure prospects, 280 289 cB 19 Sudeass & 233 BS abuse ”ILLUSTRATIONS Iimportane movemenes in archaclogy aed some major gues asc sted with thm Relationships between fests of generalizations “Morin erecting Stonehenge, fom foureeh-cetur Bish an scrip rth Liary MS Egerton 208, 08) Digging at Hernan, ts (Sse No, JC. Voge peru soon drone de Naples de Se, ata 7-® Tans recomtration of an Aun pace, from Monument of Name, ‘Stunt hve vi vessel irate with rubbing ofincriptons| anf thor transcription ino conventional characters, from rel “Scoary A aloe Bap (Percival David Foundation of Chinese ‘ar, Londen) ‘Auleys plan of Avebury, fom his Monument Britain, «is (Godleian MS Top. Gen. C24, £340) Engeving of curali and rime mones at Jellng, Dermak, 3st (Drawing eccoted for Henrik Rata and published in) ‘Sully ew of Avebury, published sn ley, 743 ‘Soccesive styles of omamertation, ram Thor's Guido older forms at tp) (C.F Thomsen Ledctrand il Nerkt Oldbyndighed, Copenhagen 136) “Thomsen showing visitors around the Museum of Northern Anti ‘Worse boring into one of the arg tumuli Fling; be expanse ‘recede wo King Frederik VIL of Denmark (Drawing by I. Keen ‘up, | “Achcleanhendase found by Frere st Hoane, published in Archaea fiatco Troe showing locaton of Paleolithic material, fom Boucher de Perhes Antique et nti, 167 ‘Mole’ epochs of prehistory tort Formation dea main Fai, a Pn of prehistoric earthworks at Portsmouth, Ohi, from Atwater’ “Description ofthe ancien covered nthe State of Ohi (Trem sion the American Artiuian Sosy, 820) Bet a tt, a Soca Davin Ancient int ofthe Masi Val, vr Tuboxk ‘Land Avery) (i411) (Ras Times Hulton Ptee Library) ‘Cra sharacervaton aca of Noah Armen, based on cho loyal entera by Holmes (Amen Antipas, 14) ‘Drawing the Great Serpent Mound of Ob en pop ly Mma (Citar tated Magasin, 0) ‘Apywouch to the aoplis, frm J.T. Bens The Ruel Cir of Masioaland 92 "Nave police dipering the blacks’, Wesern Qucenlnd, «sa (C Tomhasts Among Canal 90) (Once Mona (45-03) Wostvege artis ranged according to Monti’ ye, s8t Ce wh pay went kar ae, Or (Ra aniston on Ancient Morne, Sootand) GRC fs chart eoenng the eee cues of Crea "ope, em The Danae Preity, 039 ake’ pre of refs stratgrapy and constrction kel a Pecos ‘un, New Meio, fom An Inaction othe Study of Southwestern Anil, 904 {Cheung char from Ford and Wily’ synthesis fertern Noth Arian preter (Ameren Anthmlc to) sre’ profle of Tel eHesy, go (il a ln, se) (Gave fom Halstae cemetery, Austra, recorded by the poe dor gel the mid-nineteenth entry ‘ure of steenve periods in Pec predic sequence, from ipa Pera, 508 VT Ravdonkas (804-976) (Institut of Archaeology, Leningrad) ‘an of Palaeolithic hu found t Bury, reproduced in Anti by Chie, 010 mn fomexemvations at Novgorod, 77-8 (Instn of Archaeology, Leningrad) seasons at Novgorod, 177-82 (lnsinre of Archaeology, eningead) "Eseavations at Noygorod (astute of Archacology, Leningrad) Plan and section of Curting Tl, Star Care (Eatin at Star Cary, v9) Sroctures on mound plato, from Hinmure Ian, by T. Lewis ad IM. Keeber, 146 -MacNeishinerpretation of ubistencs-stercnt pater of Auer ado Phase (11900-73000 8) in Tehuacan Valley (Te Scene of ‘Arbacegy? 1978) Wiley’ iterpeetation of communisypaters mn the Vit Valley era, in the Huancao Petiod (AD. 8oe-4000) (Peer Seton Pattern the Vr Valle, Per, 1935) cle ”41 The setement pater of the Basin of Mexico forthe Late Horzon (Sander a, he Bain of Mev, 1979) 42 Binford’s plan ofa meaern Nuname butchery area at Anavik Springs, Alaa, showing where caribou were dsmerbered and Waste rode ‘vere dipone (Pr of he Pas, 1983) 4. Sptam fon chart for Shoshonean Indian matstence yee, by D-H. Thomas (D-H. Thomas in D.L. Clatk, et, Medd» Aric, a) {++ Flow diagram of presumed food monument allocation in the Cssic Maya cilation (A. Healer, JA. Sale and D. Ranges 8 ammo, Sxl Prec laa Preto 107) 46, Sampling at Braden K Pueblo, N Til rot GN. Hillin SR ard Pepe Archeey 98) fanning uni at Gastonbury Ion-age ss, a8 Senfed by (Cae (Me Arce, 072) D, “snl Haller receding of ethnographic dseibuin shield pes “akan motifs among ifn tc group in the Baringo ae (tReet 198) 4 Fightcon entry Willan Pact Garden, Annapolis, Maryan; the tls of the garde ar rchacologicly determined (M Leone in DD Mier ad C. Tiley, aly, Per an Preisory, 8s) 40 Maal of drop and toss zane, ar Sevelped by Boe fre bis ‘thnarchacologcl ty ofthe Nananiut of Als (In Pusat th Pax, 83) PREFACE 1s stay 48a combined product of book teaming, archacological yerienee, and oral tradition, Te grew out of a course on the worv of Archacological Theory’ that Ihave taught annually since vw, Since T began the course, [intended to write a book on this sulbjcct. My frst efforts resulted in the original esays published in ime and Tvaditons (Teigger 1078a) and Gordon Childe: Revolutions (» Avchaeoloy (Trigger 19802). While I continued to write papers on. “nous aspects of the history of archaeology (sce especially Trigger vost, 198'a, 19843, 1984, 19888, 1985, 1986b), for various reasons ‘oso more attempts in the early 1980s to begin this book came to svuthing. One ofthe reasons was my fling thatthe time was not yet propitious. Then, in the spring of 1986, I made a third artempe and, ‘ound that the book was “writing itsel. [believe that this change ‘elles my growing. satisfaction with current developments in srchacologieal interpretation, Many archaeologists, not only in the West but apparently also in the Soviet Union, are expressing ‘oneern about what they perceive asthe theoretical fragmentation of thir discipline. On the contrary, I believe that current develop- iments are helping archaeologists to transeend the imitations of narrowly focused sectarian approaches and resulting in more holistic snl fruitful interpretations of archacological data, There is also _growing tealism in assessing the limitations of archaeological data at the same time that there is greater flexibility in secking ways t0 ‘overcome these limitations, These developments draw upon past as well as present archaeological accomplishments. It is therefore a useful time to review archacological thinking from a historical per spective, 'A brief statement of my’ own theoretical pesition isin order. 1 have always regarded a materialist outlook as being more productive of an understanding of human behaviour than any other approach, Intelligent applied, it in no way diminishes an appreciation of the‘unique characteristics of the human mind, while i facilitates the inseruon of social science theory into a broader biological under- standing of human origins and behaviour. Yer I have never found that ecological determinism, nco-cvolutionary theory, or cultural materialism provide satisfactory explanations of the fll ange of variation found in human behaviour or of the various complexities ‘of concrete sequences of cultural change. Throughout my career I hhave sought to reconcile a materialist approach with efforts to account forthe historical diversity that characterizes the archaco logical record. This has fostered my grossing appreciation of his torical materialism, to which Iwas initially attracted by my efforts to ‘understand the past rather than as a result of dogmatic politcal ‘convictions In pattcula, Ihave found Gordon Childe’ historically and contextually oriented Marxism tobe infinitely preferable tothe more deterministic forms of evolutionary Marxism or the firting, with idealism that characterizes much so-called neo- Marxism, While this book has been writen asa unit, Ihave drawn to vary ‘ng. slegrees upon my previous writings. The outline ofthe study of the history of archaeology in the bibliographical essay for chapter ‘one is based heavily on Trigger (19852). Many of the ideas sed 10 structure chapters four and five were developed in Trigger (19788) and (19842), while the sections dealing with Childe in chapters five and seven are based on Trigger (1o80a) and more particularly Trigger (1o84b) and (1986). Chapter six is based in parton Trigger (1984), although the views that Thave expressed about Soviet archacology in ‘that paper have been considerably modified. Chapter nine makes use ‘ofideas developed in Trigger (1922, rose, rote. 985d. 1988), Some Of the references cited in chapter six were located by Rosemanie ‘Bernard inthe course of writing her McGill undergraduate honours thesis ‘Marxist Archacologies: A History of their Development in the US.S.R., Europe, and the Americas (198) Lam aso grateful to eter Timmins for his advice in drafting the section of chapter nine dealing with site-formation processes. For factual information and, bibliographical assistance I thank Chen Chun, Margaret Deith, Brian Fagan, Norman Hammond, Fumiko Ikawa-Smith, June Kelley, Philip Kohl, Isabel McBryde, Mary Mason, Valerie Pinsky, Neil Silberman, Robert Vogel, Alexander von Gernet, Michael ‘Woloch, and Alison Wylic, as well as many other colleagues around the world who have sent me reprints oftheir papers. the history Ha new subject Henge anyone sant go the shoulders ot his predecess fs. Because of that, whetever st has seemed appropriate to-do 80, have sted authoritative sevondaty sources eather than extended Arcay mammoth biblopeaphy with references to sill more imary sourves that are smpessible 1 obtain in most Hbeares. Ihave, however, whenever possible, examined these primary sources snd where discrepancies have been found Ihave abandoned defect- ve sexondary ones or drawn attention to theie shortcomings. Where ‘oll and inaccessible works are easly available in reprinted form (and, 1 English translation), Thave cited the latter, adding the date ofthe ‘onginal in squate brackets Rescarch for this book was greatly assisted by a sabbatical leave non McGill University and a Canada Council Leave Fellowship in ‘wne-, while some further work was done during another sabbatical leave when I held a Social Sciences and Humanities Research ‘Couneil of Canada Leave Fellowship in 1983. I wish to thank both tundergraduate and graduate students who have taken “History of Archacological Theory’ for their many contributions tothe develop- nce ofthe ideas expounded in this book. Lalsothankmy daughters, Isabel and Rosalyn, for help with word-processing and encouraging. ‘maximum clarity of expression. Finally I dedicate this book to my wie, Barbara,The relevance of archacological history hogh there exis one mar academic industry. tling the ‘sca cents «Bow they cam tr emslvesito gerine ‘cents, there exists anther, with at leat as flowing a ni inky cg tah ty omen nd Swe the 1308 archacology, expecially in North America and Western Europe, has shifted fom a seringly complacent cultre- Instorical orthodoxy to ambitious theoretical innovations. The Laer far fom prodcing an anticipated new consensus have led to ‘owing disagreement abour the goals of the discipline and how tse goals an be achieved (Dunnell p65) Increasing numbers ot archacologss, following in the wake of historians and socolo sts, ave abandoned positivist certainty and begun to entertain “lubes about the object of their research. They ee social actors ss determining not only the questions that they ask but aso the answers that they judge to be convincing. Extreme versions ofthis ‘cw deny thc archacologst can offer interpretations oftheir dara that are other than a reflection ofthe transient valics ofthe societies in which they ive. Ye if archaeology cannot proxive some kind of| ‘umulative understanding ofthe past and a commentary that is at least partially independent of specific historical contexts, what cient, a8 oppose to political, psychological, or sesthetc jus: ‘eation can be ofered for doing archaeological esearch? “This book examines the relations between archacology and its soxial milieu from a historical perspective Such an approach pro vides a comparative viewpoint from which problems of subject ‘objectivity, and the gradual accumulation of knowledge «an be assessed. Ih reent years a growing number ofachacolopsts have ome t0 agree with the philosopher and archacologist R. G.kal problem shoukd be studied without studying... che history of historical though about it’ (Dunnell 1984: 490). Historical investigations of archaeological interpretation have multiplied and mote sophisticated methodolo- gies have been adopted (Trigger 1985a)- This approach is not, however, without is critics. Michael Schiffer (1076: 193) has asscrted that graduate courses should cease ro be ‘histories of thought and instead should systematically expound and articulate current the ‘ries. His position embodies the view that the ruth or falscness of ‘theoretical formulations is independent of social infuences and. hence of history but can be determined by applying scientifically valid procedures of evaluation to adequate bodies of data. Taken 10 an extreme, this view implies that the history and philosophy of archaeology are totally unrelated t0 each other. Ironically, historical analysis provides a privileged viewpoint from which the respective merits of these opposing positions can be evaluated. ‘The following chapters will survey the main ideas that have influenced the interpretation of archacological data, especially ‘during the lst 200 yeas. I will examine in detail some ofthe socal factors thar have helped to shape che ideas that have structured this ‘work and the reciprocal impact that archacological intcrprctations have had on other necessary £0 compare the way in which archacological thought has ‘developed in various parts ofthe world. It is impossible in a single volume to examine every archaeological theory oF even every. ‘regional archacological tradition. I hope, however, that by concen ‘rating on a limited number of significant developments it will be possible to lear something about the major factors that have shaped archacological interpretation. Following L.R. Binford (1981), a distinction will be drawn between an internal dialogue, by which archaeologists have sought to develop methods for inferring human ‘behaviour from archacological data, and an external dialogue. in ‘which they use these findings to address general issues concerning, ‘human behaviour and history. While I do not claim thar these wo levels of discourse are cleasly separable, the internal dialogue ‘embraces the distinctive concems of archacology as discipline, ‘while the extemal one constitutes archacology’s contribution to the social sciences. This is, however, a distinction that has only recently ‘become clear ro most archacologiss. to yew the history af atchavebayy epular image of archaveogy rf an ester discipline that has 0 relevance forthe needs oF connstns of the present. Ernest Hooton (ot: 218) once deseribed archaeologists as being viewed as "the senile playboys of scence rooting in the rubbish heaps of antiquity”. Yet for almost 200 years a widespread concern for the broader sumpliations of archacological discoveries has contradicted this ‘mage of archaeology. No one would deny the romannc fascination svoused by spectacular archacological finds, such a those by Austen, [Layard at Nimeud or Heinsich Schliemann 3¢ Troy in the nineteenth century, and the more recent discoveries of the tomb of Tutankh- nen, the Palace of Minos, the lifesize ceramic army ofthe Chinese Emperor Qin Shihuangei, and several million-years-old fossil homi- tvs in East Africa, This docs not, however, explain the intense public interest inthe controversies that have surrounded the inter- cation of many more routine archaeological findings, the atten- tion that diverse politcal, social, and religious movements throughout the world have paid to archacological research, and. «lors by various totalitarian regimes to control the interpretation of archacological data. During the second half of the nineteenth «century, archaeology was looked to for support by both sides in the \Scbate about whether evolutionism or the book of Genesis provided 8 more reliable account of human origins. As recently asthe 19708 2 sgovernment-employed archaeologist found his position no longer tenable when he refused to cast doubt on the evidence that stone reins in Central Africa were built by the ancestors of the modern Bantu “My adoption ofa historical perspective does not mean that Iclim any privileged staus for such an approach with respect to objecti- vity. Historical interpretations are notoriously subjective, #0 the ‘otent thet many historians have viewed them as merely expressions ff personal opinion. Te is also recognized that, because of the abundance of historical data, evidence can be marshalled to ‘prove? almost anything. There may be some truth in William MeN (1986: 164) argument that, even if historical interpretation is 2forrn ‘of myth-making. the myths help to guide public action and are a ‘human substitute for instinct. I this isso, it follows char they are subject to the operation ofthe social equivalent of natural selection 3Aw ‘ot aachacobip a thought and hencemay more closely approximate reality overlong periods of time. This, however, 1 a tenuous basis on whch to base our hopes forthe objectivity of historical interpretations ‘ido not claim that the historical study presented here is any more ‘objective than ate the interpretations of archacologieal or cthnologi- cal data that it examines. I believe, however, as do many others who study the history of archacology, that ahistorical approach offers a special vantage point from which the changing relations between archaeological interpretation and is social and cultural miliewcan be ‘examined. The time perspective provides a different bass for study ing the tics betwcen archacology and society than do philosophical ‘or sociological approaches. In particular it permits the researcher to identity subjective factors by observing how and under what circum- stances interpretations of the archaeological record have changed, Althesagh this docs not eliminate the bias of the observer, or the possibility that these biases will influence the interpretation of archaeological data, it almost certainly increases the chances of ‘enn more rounded insights ineo what has happened in the past. Approaches to the history of archaeology The need fora mote systematic study ofthe history of archaeological interprettion is indicated by serious disagreements about the nature and significance ofthat history. A major controversy centres ‘onthe role played by explanation inthe study of archaeological data, ‘over the lat two centurics.G. R. Willey and J. A. Sabloff organized, their A History of American Archaeology (1974, 1980) in terms of four successive periods: Speculative, Clssificatory~Descriptive, Cassi- ficatory-Historical, and Explanatory, the last of which began in 1960. This scheme implies that archacology in the western hemi: sphere experienced a long gestation during which descriptive and classifcatory objectives predominated, prior to developing sig nilfcant theories to explain its data. Yet, as the British historian EH. Carr (1967: 3-38) has reminded us, the mere characterization ‘of data as being relevant or irrelevant, which occurs even inthe most descriptive historical studs, implies the existence of some kind of theoretical framework. Iecan further be argued in opposition tothe idea of a neutral observational language, that not even the simplest factcan be constituted independently of a theoretical context (Wylie sons 42) Inthe p we aks were not formulaced caphatly or even conse olegysts Loday, espectally in tle emtext of American archacolegy, many dheoretical propositions systematically elaborated. Yet ats surely misleading to restrict the status of theory to the sell conscious formulations of recent ules. Moreover, a close examination of the history of archaco- cal interpretation suggests tha carlier theories were not always «ss anplicit of disjointed as they are often believed to have been. ‘Oxhrs acepr that archaeologists employed theories in the past ‘oot maintain that uni recently there was not enough consistency in this process for these theories to have constituted what ‘Thomas ‘ula has called a research paradigm. Kun (1970: 10) has defined a xuligm a an accepted canon of scientific practic, including laws, tiiory, applications. and instrumentation, that provides a model For 4 particular coherent tradition of scientific research’. Such atradi- ‘won is sustained by a ‘scicntffe community” and is propagated in renal and textbooks that are controlled by that community. D. L, ‘Clarke (1968: xii) described archacology 2s an ‘undisciplined em- pical disciplin’ and suggested thet its theoretical development, at least nel very recent times, must be regarded as being in a pre- paradigmatic state. Until the 19608, archaeological theory remained 1 disconnected bundle of inadequate subtheories' that had not been Structured within a comprehensive system. He also implied that only approaches that are recognized internationally can qualify as para- Aligms (ibid. 199-5). Yer detailed studies of earlier phases in the development of archacology are revealing much mote comprehen sive and internally consistent formulations than were hitherto believed to have existed. This is especially truc of studies that respect the integrity of the past and judge the work done in terms of the ideas of the period rather than modern standards (Meltzer 1083; Grayson 1983, 1986). Some archacologists combine Kuhn's idea of scientific revolutions with an evolutionary view of the development of their discipline, They maintain that successive phases inthe development ofarchaeo- logical theory display enough internal consistency to qualify as paradigms and that the replacement of one paradigm by another ‘constitutes a scientific revolution (Sterud 1973). According to this View, successive innovators, such as Christian Thomsen, Oscar Montelius, Gordon Childe, and Lewis Binford, recognized majorAtrowory ofa gal thought anomalies and inadequacies in conventional interpretations of archacological data and shaped new paradigms that significantly ‘changed the direction of archaeological escarch. These paradigms ‘not only altered the significance that was accorded to archacological data but also determined what kinds of problems were and were not regarded as important Yet archaeologists do not agree about the actual sequence of ‘major paradigms that are supposed to have characterized the devel- ‘opment of archaeology (Schwartz 1967; essays in Fitting 1973). This ‘may partly reflect a lack of clarity in Kun conception of a para- digm (Meltzer 1979). Some critics have assumed that a discipline ‘may be characterized simultaneously by a nunber of functionally different types of paradigms. These may be only loosely related to fone another and may alter a diferent rates to produce an overall pattem of change thar is gradual rather than abrupt. Margaret ‘Masterman (1970) has differentiated three main types of paradigm: netaphsical, relating to the world view of a group of scientists, soxiologacal, that define what ws accepted and construct, tha supply the tools and methods for solving problems. No one of these types alone constitutes ‘the’ paradigm oF a particular era. Kuhn has also bbcen accused of ignoring the importance of competition and mobil lay between rival school’ for bringing about change ina discipline (Barnes 1974: 95). Te may also be that, because ofthe complexity of their subject-matter, the socal sciences have more such schools and competing paradigms than do the natural sciences and perhaps bbecause ofthis individual paradigms tend to cocxist and replace one another relatively slowly (Binford and Sabloff 1982). ‘An alternative view, which is more in accord with these critiques ‘of Kuhn and with Stephen Toulmin’s (1970) thesis that sciences do ‘ot experience revolutions but rather gradual changes of progress- jons, holds thatthe history of archaeology has involved.a cumulative ‘growth of knowledge about the past from carly times tothe present (Casson 1939; Heizer 19624; Willey and Sabloff 1974; Meltzer 1979), Te is maintained that, although various phases in this development may be delineated arbitrarily, archacology changes in a gradual fashion, with no radical breaks or sudden transformations (Daniel 1975: 374-6). Some archaeologists view the development of theit °plementsrescarch based on senitten records (M. Thompson 1967; 'D.M. Wilson 1976; Barley 1977) Palaeolithic archaeology developed alongside historical geology and palacontology and has maintained close ties with these disciplines, while the study of later prehistoric periods frequently combines data from numerous other sources with archacological findings. These include linguistics, folklore, physical anthropology. and comparative ethnology (D. McCall 964; Trigger 1908; Jennings 1979). Yer, while several of these types of archac- ology’ have developed in considerable intellectual isolation fom cach other over long periods and have been further estranged as a result of the balkanization of their respective jargons, historical connections, sporadic interaction, and common methodological interests have boen sufficient for all of them to share mumerous terpretative concepts. Inan effort to avoid a least some ofthe problems outlined above, the presen study will no survey trends in archacological interpreta- tion from a specifically chronological, geographical, or sub-discipi- nary perspective (Schuyler 1971) Instead it will investigate a number of interpretative trends in roughly the chronological order in which they originated. These trends frequently overlapped and interacted with eachother, both temporally and geographically, and the work fof many individual archacologists reflects several trends, cither at diferent stages of their careers or in some combination. This approach allows ahistorical study to rake account of changing styles of archaeological interpretation which cannot be fitted into cessly defined chronological or geographical pigeonholes but which eect ‘waves of innovation that have transformed archacology. ‘The environment of archaeology [No one denies that archacological research is influenced by many different kinds of factors. At present the most controversial ofthese is the social context in which archacologists live and work, Very few archaeologists, inchiding those who favour a positivistic view of Scientific research, would deny that the questions archacologists ask are influenced a least to some degree by this milicu. Yet positivits ‘maintain that, so long as adequate data are available and these dara are analysed using, proper scientific methods, the validity of the resulting conclusions is independent of che prejudices or beliefs of ta Isto the mcstigater, Other arhicolagsts believe that, because thei slscipine’s findlings wancerning. the past are consciously. oF ‘unconsciously seen to have implications forthe present oF about human nature generally, changing social conditions influence not ly the questions archacologists ask but also the answers that they sie predisposed to find acceptable, David Clarke (1979: 85) had chese external factors in mind when he \lescribedl archaeology as an adaptive system ‘lated internally tits “hanging content and externally tothe spiit ofthe times. Elsewhere wrote: “Through exposure to life in general, to educational processes and to the changing contemporary systems of belief we suguire a general philosophy and an archaeological philosophy in particular ~ a partly conscious and partly subconscious system of boli, concepts, values and principles, both realistic and meta- sical (bid, 2s). Seill eatlier Collingwood (1939: 114) ad ‘observed that every archacological problem ‘ultimately arises out of real” life. we study history in order to see more clearly into the situation in which we ae called upon to act’ Im recent years archacology has been powerfully influenced by the ateacks tha rlativists have launched against the concept of science 1s rational and objective enterprise. These attacks have their roots in the ant-positivism of the para-Marxist Frankfurt School, as represented most recently in the writings of Jirgen Habermas (1971) and Herbert Marcuse (1964). These scholars stress that social con- dlitions influence both what data are regarded as important and how they are interpreted (Kolakowski 1978: 341-95). The views have been strengthened by Kuhn's paradigmatic concept, by the argu- ments of the sociologist Barry Bares (1974, 1977) that scientific knowledge is not different in kind from any other forms of cultural belief, and by the anarchistic claims of the American philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend (1975) that, because objective criteria for cvaloating theories do not exist, science should not be fettered by rigid rules and that personal preferences and acsthetic tastes should be relied on to evaluate rival theories. Ideas of this sort have attracted a considerable following in recent years among self styled tical archacologists, specially in Britain and the United Stats. While some argue that in the long run greater awareness of social biases will promote more objectivity (Leone 1982), others maintain, that even basic archaeological data are mental constructs and henceAlves of an hac although are noe independent of the social milieu in which they ate uized (Gallay 1986: 55-61). The more extreme formilations ignore the {qualifications of Habermas and Barnes that ‘knowledge arises out of ‘our encounters with reality and is continually subject to fecdback- correction from these encounters (Barnes 1977: 10). Instead, they conclude tht archaeological interpretations are determined entirely by their social context rather than by any objective evidence. Thus statements about the past cannot be evaluated by any criteria other than the internal coherence of any particular study “which can only be criticised in terms of internal conceptual relations and not in terms of externally imposed standards or criteria for “measuring” or “determining” tuth or falsity’ (Miller and Tilley 1984: 11). A broad spectrum of alternatives separates those hyper positivisticarchae- ‘ologists who believe that only the quality of archaeological data and, of analytical techniques determines the value of archaeological inter- pretations and the hyper-relaivists who are inclined to accord archaeological data no role, but instead explain archacological inter- pretations entirely in terms of the socal and cultural loyalties ofthe researcher. ‘While the influences that societies exert on archaeological inter- pretations are potentially very divers, the development of archac: ‘ology has corresponded temporally with the rise 10 power of the mide classes in Western society. Although many of the early patrons of classical archaeology belonged to the aristocracy, since Giriaco de? Pizicoli in the fifteenth century archaeologists have been predominantly members of the middie class: civil servants, cdergymen, merchants, country squires, and, with inereasing pro” fessionalization, university teachers. In addition, much ofthe public intrest in archacological findings has been found among the edu ‘ated middle classes, including sometimes political leaders. All branches of scientific investigations that have developed since the seventeenth century have done so under the aegis of the middle classes. Yet archacology and history are readily intelligible dis plines and their findings have strong implications concerning Fhuman nature and why modern societies have come to be as they re (Levine 1986). This transparent relevance for current political, ‘economic, and social issues makes relations between archacology and society especially complex and important. It therefore seems reasonable to examine archaeology as an expression of the ideology saga tony ‘ofthe mille classes and to try to dscsver to what extent changes in urchacological interpretation elect the altering fortunes of that group. “This is mot to claim that the middle classes area unitary phenom non. The bourgeoisie of the Ancien Régime. composed largely of levies, professionals, and royal administrators, has to be distin. guished from the entrepreneurial bourgeoisie of the Industrial Revolution (Dannton 1084: m3) The interests and degree of devel: ‘opment of the middle classes also have varied greatly from one «country to another and within each country they have been divided ‘nc various stata, while individuals who prefer either mote radical for more conservative options are found in each stratum. It is also evident that archaeology has not been associated with the whole middle class but only with that part of it, largely composed of professionals, which is inclined to be interested in scholarship (Krie- tiansen 1981; Levine 1986) Relations between interests and ideas are contextually mediated byalarge number of factors. Archaeologists therefore cannot expect {to establish a one-to-one correspondence between specifi archaco- logical interpretations and particular class interests. Instead they ‘must analyse the ideas influencing archaeological interpretations 38, tools with which social groups seck to achieve thei goals in par- ticular situations. Among these goals are to enhance the group's selfconfidence by making its success appear natural, predestined, and inevitable, o inspire and ustify collective action, and to di guise collective interests as altruism (Barnes 1974: 16); in short, to provide groups and whole societies with mythical charters (McNeil 1986). Without denying the significance of individual psychological traits and cultural traditions, the relations between archacology and. the middle classes provide an important focus for examining the relationship between archacology and society ‘Most professional archacologists also believe their discipline to be significantly influenced by a large number of other intemal and ‘external factors. All bu che most radical relativists agree that one of these is the archaeological database. Archacological data have been accumulating continuously for several centuries and new data are traditionally held to constitute a test of earlier interpretations. Yet what data are collected and by what methods are influenced by every archaeologists sense of what is significant, which in turn reflects his sAtusgony of asbacvgeal nit theoretical presuppositions, This creates reciprocal relation: ship betwcen data collection and interpretation that leaves both ‘open to socal influences. Moreover, the data recovered in the past are often nether adequate nor appropriate to solve the problems that are considered important at a later time. This is not simply because archaeologists were unfamiliar with techniques that became important later and therefore filed to preserve charcoal for radio ‘carbon dating or sil samples for phytoith analysis although such ‘zaps in documentation can be extremely limiting. New perspectives frequently open up whole new lines of investigation, For example, Grahame Clark's (1954) interest in the economy of the Mesolithic Period led him to ask questions that simply could not be answered using data collected when the main interest of Mesolithic studies ‘was typological (Clark 1932). Likewise, the development of an interest in settlement archaeology revolutionized archacologicl site surveys (Willey 1053) and provided a stronger impetus for the recording and analysis of intraste distributions of features and artifacts (Millon eal. 1973). Hence, while archacological data are being collected constantly, the results are not necessarily as cumu- lative as many archaeologists believe. Indeed, archacologiss often ‘seem to build more on what their predecessors concluded about the past than on the evidence on which these conclusions were based. ‘What archacologistscan study i also influenced by the resources that ae made available for archaeological escatch, the institutional contexts in which research is carried out, andthe kinds of investi: ‘tions societies or governments are prepared to let archacologists “undertake. To obtain suppor archaeologists must please thei spon- sors, whether these be wealthy patrons (Hinsley 1985), colleagues and politicians managing the allocation of public funds (Patterson 98a), or the general public. There may also be social restrictions on ‘xeavating certain kinds of sites, such as cemeteries o¢ religious localities (Rosen 1980). In these ways considerable constraint may ‘be exerted on the research archacologists do and how they interpret thei finds. Until che twentieth century, few archaeologists were educated in the discipline. Instead they brought to archacology a variety of skis and viewpoints acquired in many different fields and avocations. All of them had studied a curticulum in which elasical and biblical ‘material was emphasized. Basic principles derived from a wide- slegelapmnent of typooy al stian Thomsen, John ‘sans, and other eatlyatchaevlogists (McKay 1976). In the nine- ‘ccnth century a growing number whe took up the study of archac- logy had been educated in the physical and biological sciences. ' sen now itis claimed tha significant differences can be noted inthe ‘work done by professional archaeologists whose early training was humanities or natural sciences (Chapman 1979: 121). More 2 large number of prchistorie archacologists have been ‘tained in anthropology or history departments, depending on local references. The role played by particularly sucessful teachers or ‘harismatic archacologists as exemplars in shaping the practice of rchaeology on a national and an international scale is also sig- vuticant. Younger archacologists may strike offin new directions and woncer novel techniques of analysis or ineerprettion inorder to try ‘w establish a reputation for themselves. This phenomenon is par "iculaly common during periods of rapid growth anda broadening. vange of employment opportunites. Archacological interpretation has also been influenced by devel ‘opments in the physical and biological sciences. Until recent siecades, when collaborative research involving archacologists and, natural Scientists became routine, with rare exceptions the flow of ‘formation between these disciplines was unidirectional, with sichacologists being the recipients. Hence research in the natural sciences was only fortuitously related to the needs ofarchacologist, although from time to time discoveries were made that were of tremendous importance for archacology.The development of radio- carbon and other geochronometric dating techniques after World War I provided archacologists forthe first time with a universally applicable chronology and one that allowed the duration as well a8 the relative order of achacological manifestations ro be determined. Pollen analysis has provided valuable new insights into prehistoric