SynboZic a n d ~tmcturaZArchaeoZogy, e d i t e d by I a n Hodder.
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s (1982).
188 pp.
$50.50.
Cambridge
Reviewed by C h r i s Gosden
The p a p e r s i n SzjmboZic and S t m c t u r a Z ArchaeoZogy were f i r s t g i v e n
a t a c o n f e r e n c e i n Cambridge i n A p r i l 1980. T h i s c o n f e r e n c e was b i l l e d
a s t h e f i r s t c o h e r e n t s t a t e m e n t of a new movement i n a r c h a e o l o g y , which
s h o u l d p r o v i d e a c o r r e c t i v e t o t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e b i a s of t h e s o - c a l l e d
New Archaeology of t h e 1960s and 70s. The main q u e s t i o n p o s e d , once a g a i n ,
was 'what i s a r c h a e o l o g y ? ' .
The answer t h a t t h e c o n t r i b u t o r s t o t h i s volume
seek t o provide i s t h a t archaeology i s n o t a n a t u r a l s c i e n c e , seeking f o r
laws of human b e h a v i o u r , b u t s h o u l d r a t h e r p r o v i d e a p a s t t e n s e f o r t h e
d i s c u s s i o n s c u r r e n t i n a n t h r o p o l o g y and s o c i o l o g y c o n c e r n i n g s u c h q u e s t i o n s
a s t h e formation of s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e s and t h e u s e of m a t e r i a l c u l t u r e i n
t h e games p e o p l e p l a y .
The Cambridge-based group r e j e c t w i t h o n e v o i c e t h e New A r c h a e o l o g i s t s
a s b e i n g f u n c t i o n a l i s t s , p o s i t i v i s t s and e n v i r o n m e n t a l d e t e r m i n i s t s .
There
i s l e s s u n i t y i n t h e new d i r e c t i o n s which t h e y propose a s r e p l a c e m e n t s .
Some (Hodder, Donley, Moore and B r a i t h w a i t e ) have been most i n f l u e n c e d by
a n t h r o p o l o g y i n i t s symbolic and s t r u c t u r a l g u i s e s and have u n d e r t a k e n
' e t h n o a r c h a e o l o g i c a l ' f i e l d w o r k themselves; o t h e r s ( M i l l e r , T i l l e y , P a r k e r
Pearson) a r e most concerned w i t h s o c i o l o g i c a l t h e o r y , p a r t i c u l a r l y a s p u t
forward by Giddens.
The d i v e r s i t y of t h e i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s makes i t d i f f i c u l t t o
surmnarise t h e arguments t h e y c o n t a i n . The t o n e of t h e volume, however, i s
s e t by Hodder's i n t r o d u c t o r y p a p e r . I n t h i s h e c r i t i c i s e s t h e New Archaeology f o r dehumanising s o c i e t y by viewing i t a s a c o l l e c t i o n of v a r i a b l e s
grouped i n t o sub-systems, which i n t u r n a r e c o n n e c t e d t o form a l a r g e r
system, which changes mainly under p r e s s u r e from t h e e x t e r n a l environment.
Hodder t r a c e s t h e u s e of systems t h e o r y by p e o p l e such a s B i n f o r d , C l a r k e ,
F l a n n e r y and Renfrew, on t h e one hand, and t h e s t r e s s p u t on e c o l o g i c a l
a d a p t a t i o n by t h e Higgs s c h o o l , on t h e o t h e r , t o t h e view h e l d by R a d c l i f f e Brown and Durkheim t h a t s o c i e t y c o u l d b e s e e n a s a n o r g a n i s m , t h e i n d i v i d u a l
p a r t s o f which f u n c t i o n t o m a i n t a i n t h e whole i n some s o r t of b a l a n c e w i t h
t h e world o u t s i d e . I n c o n t r a s t t o t h i s Hodder would l i k e t o s e e some s o r t
of r e t u r n t o t h e aims of a p r e v i o u s g e n e r a t i o n of a r c h a e o l o g i s t s , t h e
foremost of whom was C h i l d e , who thought of a r c h a e o l o g y a s a h i s t o r i c a l
d i s c i p l i n e a t t e m p t i n g t o e x p l a i n c u l t u r e a s t h e product of a s e r i e s of
p a s t c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Such a n approach a g a i n c o n t r a s t s w i t h t h e New Archaeol o g y which s t r e s s e s c r o s s - c u l t u r a l comparisons i n i t s a t t e m p t s t o d e r i v e
g e n e r a l laws. Hodder f e e l s t h a t t h i s i g n o r e s t h e d i v e r s i t y and range of
human s o c i e t y .
However, t h e s o r t of humanism proposed i n t h i s volume owes much t o a
1 9 t h c e n t u r y Marxist view of s o c i e t y , whereas t h e previous g e n e r a t i o n
P i g g o t t and D a n i e l followed 18th c e n t u r y enlightenment thought. The l i n k
between t h e two g e n e r a t i o n s i s provided by C h i l d e who i s o f t e n c i t e d i n
t h i s volume ( p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Leone's f i n a l d i s c u s s i o n ) a s a s o r t of a n c e s t o r
f i g u r e . Many c o n t r i b u t i o n s propose t o make u s e of t h e i d e a s developed w i t h i n
s t r u c t u r a l i s t and p o s t - s t r u c t u r a l i s t s t r a n d s i n anthropology and sociology
t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e way i n which s o c i a l r u l e s a r e generated and made manifest
by m a t e r i a l c u l t u r e and t h e s t r a t e g i e s which may be pursued by i n d i v i d u a l s
and groups w i t h i n s o c i e t y a s a whole.
Although I f e e l c o n s i d e r a b l e p e r s o n a l sympathy w i t h t h e s e g e n e r a l
humanist aims, t h e r e a r e a number of t h i n g s which worry me about t h e way i n
which t h e y have been pursued i n t h i s volume. My main doubt concerns t h e
a b s t r a c t l e v e l a t which d i s c u s s i o n t a k e s p l a c e . Many of t h e p a p e r s touch
on, o r wholly concern themselves w i t h , g e n e r a l i s s u e s . There i s a l s o much
r e p e t i t i o n . We a r e t r e a t e d t o s e v e r a l d i s c u s s i o n s of Radcliffe-Brown's
f u n c t i o n a l i s m , ~ a u s s u r e ' sl i n g u i s t i c s and Gidden's i d e a s on s t r u c t u r a t i o n .
A l o t of t h e d i s c u s s i o n t a k e s p l a c e i n a n i l l - d e f i n e d i n t e l l e c t u r a l morass
i n which i t i s e a s i e r t o s l i n g mud a t f u n c t i o n a l i s t opponents t h a n i t i s t o
b l a z e a c l e a r t r a i l t o academically f i r m e r ground. The jargon i n some of
t h e p a p e r s i s a l s o a problem.
The r e a s o n f o r t h e g e n e r a l i t y of many p a p e r s i s a f a s c i n a t i o n with t h e
means of s t u d y , r a t h e r than t h e o b j e c t of s t u d y . I f e e l t h a t many of t h e
b r o a d e r i s s u e s c o u l d have been b e t t e r t a c k l e d i n more c o n c r e t e terms, which
concerned themselves w i t h t h e form and n a t u r e of t h e p r e h i s t o r i c s o c i e t y
under examination. The o b s e s s i o n with a b s t r a c t theory means t h a t many of
t h e a n a l y s e s a r e tacked on r a t h e r a s a n a f t e r t h o u g h t . For example, Hodder
c o n s i d e r s t h e p o s s i b l e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e d e c o r a t i o n found on Dutch
Linearbandkeramik p o t t e r y and h e r e l a t e s p a r t i c u l a r s t r e s s e s which he s e e s
w i t h i n s o c i e t y t o c e r t a i n combinations and t y p e s of d e c o r a t i o n . T h i s
a n a l y s i s f l o a t s over t h e d a t a r a t h e r than r e a l l y engaging w i t h them mainly
b e c a u s e of l a c k of d e f i n i t i o n of t h e e x a c t n a t u r e of Dutch H e o l i t h i c s o c i e t y .
It i s d i f f i c u l t t o examine symbols i f w e a r e n o t s u r e what they a r e supposed
t o represent.
StjmboZic and StmcturaZ ArchaeoZogy may perhaps b e s t b e viewed a s an
e x e r c i s e i n marking o u t a n a r e a of academic t e r r i t o r y and t h e amount of
a b s t r a c t d i s c u s s i o n a s a means of d e f i n i n g t h e boundaries. There i s a
c e r t a i n M e s s i a n i c t r a d i t i o n a t Cambridge, where new groups p e r i o d i c a l l y
s p r i n g up d e d i c a t e d t o a s e t of p r o p o s i t i o n s which they a r e prepared t o
defend a g a i n s t a l l corners ( t h e Higgs s c h o o l b e i n g t h e movement previous t o
t h i s ) . The t a k i n g and d e f e n c e of a new academic p o s i t i o n o f t e n g e n e r a t e s
more h e a t t h a n l i g h t i n t h e i n i t i a l s t a g e s . The degree of h e a t generated
o f t e n i n d i c a t e s how r e a l a r e t h e i s s u e s a t s t a k e . It i s t o b e hoped i n t h i s
c a s e t h a t once t h e polemic s u b s i d e s archaeology w i l l be found t o have gained
a b r o a d e r t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s which can p r o v i d e a d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e on t h e
d a t a which a r e f a s t accumulating.
Department of P r e h i s t o r y
Research School of P a c i f i c S t u d i e s
A u s t r a l i a n National U n i v e r s i t y
Canberra ACT