An illustration of significant difference between two 20th century approaches is seen in the definition of archaeology given by Childe writing in 1946 (Childe 1953, 3) as 'the systematic search for, and comparison and classification of, the substantial remains of human handiwork.' Twenty years later L R Binford defines archaeology as having the purpose of both tracing the origins of culture and the reconstruction of the 'lifeways' of the people responsible for the archaeological remains (Binford and Binford 1968). These are distinct approaches, the second not denying the first, but the first certainly excluding the second. But then, if an antiquarian of the late 18th century had been asked to define the subject of his interest, it is likely that a similar contrast would have been in evidence, and Childe's 'search ... for the substantial remains of human handiwork' would be emphasised - but Childe's purpose of comparison and classification would be absent. Definitions reflect the development of the discipline, and in particular of attitudes to data and method.
Ever since archaeology slowly began to gain momentum in the 19th century as a subject of organised study, it has been open to two major influences. Internally, it has grown organically as a discipline through the development of techniques of data recovery and recording, and the introduction and application of more rigorous academic standards. Also, and at a greater rate than many other disciplines, archaeology has been expanding its purposes and scope over time, and in so doing has laid itself open to external influences and contributions from by now many other major disciplines. Practitioners of archaeology have themselves developed a wider outlook, at what they have found, as well as what they might look for, and what other methods of thinking and technique might be applied to their study area to help explanation and theory. Experts in other disciplines, notably anthropology, have themselves looked at archaeology, and made their own observations which have accelerated the process of change and development. The discipline thus has been in a fairly constant state of change and expansion, as these processes have interacted.
The fundamentals underlying all these flows are the data that archaeology admits, and the ways of transforming this data into information. The history of the development of archaeological thinking is in essence the tracing of the preparedness of its practitioners to be open to ideas and methods, and to rely on rigour in approach. The societies in which the archaeologists themselves have lived have changed in ways which influence their thinking, and there has been constant development in the research and expansion of other disciplines which archaeology has gradually admitted to its purpose. These have heavily influenced archaeologists' attitudes to data collection, to the potential for information that the archaeologically discovered data might contain, and to methods of transforming that data into the archaeological information that delivers the purpose of the discipline as currently conceived.
What were the focuses for thought? What were the natural phases of development of thought, and when did shifts occur?
The focuses were largely the material remains of monuments, and the burial evidence that they contained. In the period from the 1830s to roughly mid-way through the century thought opened up to the possibilities of material typology and chronological frameworks for human development. The concept that a prehistory existed was established in the 1850s, and also the idea that it could be studied systematically. Towards the end of the century the beliefs which might underlie (chiefly) burial activity among modern primitive peoples began to be explored, and to influence archaeological explanation of prehistoric society and customs in a simple way.
What reference points were used in the thinking, and what was their context?
The reference points included recognition of the requirement to excavate and publish so as to record and if possible explain what was found, rather than merely collect; the accumulation of excavated material which needed organization for display and explanation to the public; the adoption of scientific methods of explanation in geology and biology which opened up new avenues of chronological and cultural explanation to archaeologists; and the initiation of serious study of the sociology, psychology and general ethnology of modern primitive peoples which could be applied to burial archaeology. The broad context for this was cultivation of the practice of unconstrained thinking and research.
What was the evidence and its quality?
The material evidence from burial excavation was still not particularly well retrieved and recorded for much of the 1800s, and despite the example of Pitt-Rivers this was to be the case in the first decades of the next century. Concentration still tended to be on the accumulation of relics, and less obviously interesting or valuable material was scantily recorded, not observed or ignored. There was seldom much recording of physical characteristics of sites beyond the obvious ones of location, orientation and size. The inner and less obvious physical features such as pits, stakeholes and subtleties of stratification were rarely recorded. Some of the reasons for this lay in excavation methods before Pitt-Rivers which militated against such recovery.
The non-material evidence (largely ethnographical parallels from other authors) was used casually and more often as interesting side notes rather than being assessed as academic support for particular lines of thinking on the meaning of what was found. Without the more robust theoretical frameworks that were to be produced in the next century, perhaps little more could be done. Towards the end of the century some excavators were showing awareness of others' work and drawing parallels and distinctions between the findings. This was the start of enrichment of factual reporting on material by broader intelligent commentary.
How were views radically changed?
The most radical change in the century was in the view that the subjects of burials (or of any prehistoric context) were far from being the rude savages imagined previously, but rather in the words of Pennington (1877, 23) were people who had 'acquired so much skill and intelligence' that they were worth study from a wider perspective than simply the sequence in which over thousands of years they developed the artefacts which survived. To this end, sciences of different kinds had much to offer. Even so, this broader view of study was to take nearly 90 years to gather strength. The next most radical change was at the material end of the spectrum in the principle advanced by Pitt-Rivers that 'ordinary things' were as important to record as the extraordinary, since their study was potentially as productive, and future workers might need them. Together these views, one of attitude to what was to be explained, the other of practice in what was to be retrieved and recorded, were fundamental to the next advances.
What were the focuses for thought? What were the natural phases of development of thought, and when did shifts occur?
Amongst archaeologists the focuses were on improvement in data retrieval and recording techniques, and on extending the use of other sciences to aid in this. In terms of explanation, the focus was largely on accounting for prehistory in a material-cultural sense, with intuitive construction and explanation of an expanding geographical and temporal canvas. The developments of the late 1920s and 1930s held for the remainder of the period. Outside the discipline the early work on social anthropology was very influential within that discipline for the remainder of the period, its use for burial archaeology having to wait. Radiocarbon dating was the scientific development of most impact on explanatory thinking in the period, although aerial survey had an impact of different but nearly equally significant kind.
What reference points were used in the thinking, and what was their context?
Social anthropology and the relationship of rites of passage to society's organization and structure were new reference points, as was the development (but not use) of a methodological framework more advanced than that of Tylor. In the explanation of prehistory, the main reference points were still material typologies, and in the case of some workers (like Childe) the theories of influential philosophers or cultural stances were drawn into explanation. Another reference point was the facility of science to measure and quantify, and invent new ways to discover facts, in the context of the ever-continuing development of disciplines.
What was the evidence and its quality?
Better excavation and recording techniques, and the increase in the use of scientific aids improved the quality of what was retrieved for analysis and interpretation. The potential evidence (or modes of thinking) that social anthropology offered to burial archaeology was not sought, and its initial quality might have been open to question had it been used. The early quality of radiocarbon dating evidence proved unsatisfactory in parts, and this had to be corrected later by cross-checking with dendrochronology.
How were views radically changed?
The attempt to construct major cultural and chronological frameworks was a radical advance on previous work, and in effect created models of prehistory mainly derived from burial archaeology that were influential for much of the period. The historical-cultural approach became better organized, but in essence was still on the 19th century continuum, but better informed, intellectually argued and presented. The radiocarbon revolution was one of the most important advances in our study of the prehistoric past and shook traditional views on prehistoric chronologies in Europe, and Europe/East chronological links. It led to the idea that independent development could take place if economic and social conditions were right. Radical innovation is possible independently anywhere, and radiocarbon dating has made possible a chronology which is independent of evidence of cultural contact. There was no shift to admit the processual approaches and the need for new methods that anthropologists and others were hinting at, and the attitude to anthropology as evidenced from archaeological publications did not radically change from the casual interest of the later 19th century. Concepts about connections between mortuary practice and society structure and beliefs scarcely changed at all from those of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
There were signs of attitudinal changes in other respects. Fox (1959b) wrote: 'The possibility of ritual procedure before and during the burial of an important member of a savage community, and again at or after the raising of the mound or cairn, should always be in view during an excavation: a questioning mind, alert to any unusual or apparently inexplicable feature, or to the exact siting and character of a 'normal' feature, is essential.' (ibid xxv-vi). Some rituals leave traces, others not: 'In the former group is the lighting of sacred fires: the scattering of charcoal: the tread-marks of a procession of naked feet in a circle: and the dance. With the latter are music and song.' (ibid xxvi).
So they might dance and sing? What can they be thinking of? Which is just the point. At the cross-roads of this period and the next, Fox boldly stated that 'Archaeology is incapable of dealing with myth, but ritual it can, as I hope to demonstrate, recover, and analyse and appreciate.' (ibid xxvii). He went on to say that the approach is not merely placing of objects and structures in a time-scale but 'the record of what men did in a long past time at a particular spot: and therefore since thought governs action, what they were thinking.' (ibid xxvii). He tried as far as he felt he could to follow this up in practice, and Life and Death in the Bronze Age is a book where one feels a glimpse of ritual as it was carried out does come through, if not its meaning.
What were the focuses for thought? What were the natural phases of development of thought, and when did shifts occur?
The main focus was the search for a theory of archaeology to use in the establishment of hypotheses and explanation of archeological data. The main phases were 1960-80 in which the Binford/Clarke processual archaeology was adopted by many in the field (but by no means all), and developed. Processual archaeology stimulated the development of cognitive archaeology in the 1980s (its root being in the mid-70s), but also generated in the 1980s a reaction leading to a general post-processual school. This appears to be generating in its wake a diffused set of approaches, none seemingly in competition but rather in symbiosis, using a variety of methodologies and philosophies to conduct their studies into the 1990s. These continue to exist as the cognitive-processualist strand develops with greater coherence alongside.
What reference points were used in the thinking, and what was their context?
The main reference points at the outset were the publications of Binford and Clarke, which were the culmination of growing dissatisfaction with the lack of archaeological theory, and the need to challenge established intuitive approaches which did not present data for testing. Later a variety of reference points were used.
What was the evidence and its quality?
Excavation data continued to improve, as did the evidence obtainable from it by use of advancing scientific methods and greater sensitivity of excavators. Theoretical archaeology has as yet only partially aided the better interpretation of data on the broad front in burial archaeology, there being as yet no structure to replace the previous edifice. Interesting small-scale studies of a processual kind illuminate parts of the burial record.
How were views radically changed, specifically by 'new' or 'processual' archaeology?
Attitudes to the handling of archaeological data. and to the construction of explanation moved firmly into a scientific frame of thought. This has proved a stern test of the discipline to date, since the conventions of scientific method require good data, well constructed hypotheses, repeatable tests, and impersonal approaches to the interpretation of results, all of which together is rarely attainable. On the other hand, the discipline has gained an optimism that it may be able through its new approaches to solve interpretative problems that previously were thought unsolvable. The opening up of prospective methods has encouraged a variety of analytical techniques to be employed, with a variety of bases from philosophy to computer science. The benefits for explanation in burial archaeology have yet to be realised, and views on mortuary process still largely depend on a combination of anthropological and historico-cultural method, with the former more in evidence in the 1990s than before but nonetheless not prominent.
© Internet Archaeology/Author(s)
University of York legal statements | Terms and Conditions
| File last updated: Wed Nov 7 2001