HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY LOSING ITS WAY?
BAIRSTOW AT THE THEORETICAL CROSSROADS
Tim Murray
I n f o r m e d a s s e s s m e n t s of t h e o r y f o r m a t i o n and development i n A u s t r a l i a n
t h e o r e t i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y a r e a l w a y s welcome, n o t l e a s t b e c a u s e t h e y a r e s o
rare.
F o r t h i s r e a s o n any p a p e r which a r g u e s t h a t A u s t r a l i a n h i s t o r i c a l
a r c h a e o l o g i s t s should b u i l d theory t h a t t a k e s i n t o account t h e p e c u l i a r
n a t u r e o f t h e d a t a b a s e h e r e merits s e r i o u s a t t e n t i o n . Even more s o ,
b e c a u s e by W e s s o n ' s ( 1 9 8 3 ) a c c o u n t i n g a n d by B a i r s t o w ' s own c r i t e r i a ,
' H i s t o r i c a l archaeology a t t h e crossroads.
An a p p r a i s a l of t h e o r e t i c a l
c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ' ( B a i r s t o w 1984) i s de facto, t h e most s e a r c h i n g i n q u i r y
i n t o t h e t h e o r e t i c a l c o n d i t i o n s of A u s t r a l i a n h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y t h a t
h a s y e t t o a p p e a r . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , a number of c o n f u s i o n s , e r r o r s and
d i s q u i e t i n g l i n e s of a r g u m e n t r e n d e r some of h e r u s e f u l p o i n t s l e s s s a t i s f y i n g t h a n they should be.
B a i r s t o w ' s i n t e n t i o n i s t o argue t h a t t h e primary c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n
t h e o r y b u i l d i n g s h o u l d b e t h e i n t e g r i t y of t h e A u s t r a l i a n c o n t e x t . T h i s i s
t r a n s l a t e d i n t o p r a c t i c a l a c t i o n by a d v i c e t h a t A u s t r a l i a n h i s t o r i c a l
a r c h a e o l o g i s t s s h o u l d b e wary o f b o r r o w i n g l o c k , s t o c k and b a r r e l what
m i g h t a p p e a r t o b e e x t e r n a l l y v a l i d a t e d e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l and p r o c e d u r a l
a p p r o a c h e s f r o m o t h e r c o n t e x t s . The two m a j o r bug-bears h e r e a r e s e e n t o
b e p r e h i s t o r i c a r c h a e o l o g y and ' t h e A m e r i c a n s ' , b o t h of which have been
t o u c h e d by t h e t a r - b r u s h o f t h e h y p o t h e t i c o - d e d u c t i v e method. A t t h e back
o f t h i s a d v i c e i s a n i m p l i c i t a p p e a l t o t h e p o t e n t i a l e x i s t e n c e of h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y a s a d i s c i p l i n e s e p a r a t e from o t h e r b r a n c h e s of a r c h a e o l o g y .
F u r t h e r , a n d e v e n more d e e p l y embedded, i s a n a p p e a l t o t h e n a t i o n a l l y
d i s t i n c t i v e b a s i s of h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y i t s e l f .
W h i l e I h a v e no q u a r r e l w i t h t h e v i e w s t h a t t h e c o n t e x t of h i s t o r i c a l
a r c h a e o l o g y i s d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of o t h e r b r a n c h e s of a r c h a e o l o g y , and
t h a t t h e h i s t o r i e s of p a r t i c u l a r n a t i o n s s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d a s a n import a n t a s p e c t of c o n t e x t , I q u e s t i o n t h e n o t i o n s t h a t h i s t o r i c a l archaeology
is a d i s t i n c t i v e d i s c i p l i n e , and t h a t h i s t o r i c a l context i s all-important
i n b u i l d i n g t h e o r y f o r A u s t r a l i a n h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y . For o b v i o u s
r e a s o n s h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g i s t s ( e s p e c i a l l y i n A u s t r a l i a , New Z e a l a n d ,
S o u t h A f r i c a , Canada a n d t h e USA) h a v e t o s h a r e a s p e c t s of t h e i r r e s e a r c h
agendas w i t h p r e h i s t o r i c archaeologists. Further, I see h i s t o r i c a l
a r c h a e o l o g y a s a b r a n c h o f a r c h a e o l o g y , and a r c h a e o l o g y a s a b r a n c h of t h e
human s c i e n c e s .
I r e c o g n i s e t h a t t h i s i s a s t a t e m e n t of p e r s p e c t i v e w i t h which B a i r s t o w
a n d o t h e r s may w e l l d i s a g r e e , a n d t h a t i t c a n n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d a d e c i s i v e
argument a g a i n s t B a i r s t o w ' s viewpoint. However, t h i s a p p e a l t o t h e w i d e r
d i s c i p l i n a r y c o n t e x t of archaeology makes d i r e c t r e f e r e n c e t o t h e r e s e a r c h
program of b e h a v i o u r a l archaeology - t h e e x p l a n a t i o n of p r e h i s t o r i c and
h i s t o r i c p a t t e r n i n g i n terms of t h e o r i e s of human b e h a v i o u r . T h i s i s t h e
r e s e a r c h program which h a s powered much of t h e a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h
(both h i s t o r i c and p r e h i s t o r i c ) of t h e l a s t g e n e r a t i o n of p r a c t i t i o n e r s .
Furthermore, h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g i s t s cannot work i n a vacuum, t h e y have
t o be a b l e t o convince a r c h a e o l o g i s t s a s w e l l a s h i s t o r i a n s , e c o n o m i s t s ,
and s o c i o l o g i s t s when they account f o r t h e h i s t o r i c a l p a s t from a n archaeol o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . Each of t h e s e d i s c i p l i n e s have t h e i r own r e s e a r c h
agendas, and t h e i r own r e a s o n s f o r being i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e m a t e r i a l r e m a i n s
and c o n t e x t s of human a c t i o n i n h i s t o r i c a l p e r i o d s . So, even on t h e b a s i s
of t h i s u n o b j e c t i o n a b l e assumption, t h e d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s of h i s t o r i c a l
archaeology and of i t s n a t i o n a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n s i s p r a c t i c a l l y c i r c u m s c r i b e d .
F i n a l l y , w h i l e I have no problem w i t h t h e n o t i o n t h a t borrowed c o n c e p t s ,
c a t e g o r i e s , procedures o r t h e o r e t i c a l approaches should b e a s s e s s e d a g a i n s t
the Australian data f o r t h e i r propriety, they should not be automatically
excluded from c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h e r e a s o n s t h a t Bairstow o f f e r s h e r e .
In
t h e f i n a l a n a l y s i s they may w e l l prove t o b e i n d i f f i c u l t y , b u t we w i l l n o t
know t h i s u n t i l t h o s e more g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d approaches have b e e n t r i e d
here.
Concerning s p e c i f i c d i f f i c u l t i e s , t h e f i r s t r e s u l t s from h e r c a t e g o r y
' t h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e s ' ' t h e o r e t i c a l frameworkst ( t h e two t e r m s a p p e a r t o b e
used interchangeably i n t h e t e x t ) . A t f i r s t s i g h t h e r r e a s o n s f o r t h e
e x c l u s i o n of Frankel (1972) and J a c k (1980) from i t on the b a s i s of a g e o r
non-archaeological c o n t e x t appear t o be j u s t i f i a b l e . However, on c l o s e r
i n s p e c t i o n , t h i s most b a s i c of B a i r s t o w ' s c a t e g o r i e s l o s e s d e f i n i t i o n ,
consequently h e r j u s t i f i c a t i o n s l o s e power. Two p a p e r s have b e e n excluded
from h e r undefined c a t e g o r y , Birmingham and J e a n s (1983) and Murray (1983).
I mention t h i s n o t t o b e g i n a n argument about p r i o r i t y , which i n any c a s e
f o r A u s t r a l i a would have t o be extended back t o t h e 19609, b u t t o h i g h l i g h t
t h e f u z z i n e s s of h e r c a t e g o r y . What a r e t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e i r e x c l u s i o n ?
The a u t h o r s of b o t h p a p e r s would a r g u e t h a t t h e y both a d d r e s s s u b s t a n t i v e
' t h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e s ' and propose v i a b l e ' t h e o r e t i c a l frameworks', Birmingham
and J e a n s being p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h b u i l d i n g a n i n t e r p r e t a t i v e model
f o r A u s t r a l i a n c o l o n i a l archaeology, Murray f o c u s s i n g on e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l
i s s u e s and t h e v a l u e of t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l approach t o h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y .
Bairstow c l e a r l y must n o t a g r e e t h a t t h e s e p a p e r s a r e ' t h e o r e t i c a l ' , b u t
s h e never e x p l a i n s why. Perhaps i t i s b e c a u s e t h e y u s e borrowed c o n c e p t s
and approaches t o advocate an i d e n t i t y f o r A u s t r a l i a n h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y
t h a t Bairstow c o n s i d e r s does n o t do j u s t i c e t o t h e A u s t r a l i a n c o n t e x t . Who
knows? A l l t h i s n a t u r a l l y l e a d s t o t h e q u e s t i o n
j u s t what d o e s B a i r s t o w
mean by ' t h e o r e t i c a l ' i n h e r paper? I n s t e a d of c l a r i f y i n g t h e n a t u r e of
theory i n A u s t r a l i a n h i s t o r i c a l archaeology s h e muddies t h e w a t e r s t i l l
further
It i s h a r d t o t e a s e o u t B a i r s t o w ' s argument from f r e q u e n t overg e n e r a l i s a t i o n and confusion. We a r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h supposedly s t r o n g
reasons f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t A u s t r a l i a n h i s t o r i c a l archaeology s h o u l d have a
d i f f e r e n t t h e o r e t i c a l c o n t e x t from t h a t i n t h e USA ( b e c a u s e of t h e d i f f e r e n t
h i s t o r i e s of both c o u n t r i e s ) .
She seems n o t t o r e c o g n i s e ( d e s p i t e h e r
q u o t a t i o n s from Turner (1920)) t h a t i n some n o t a b l e s e n s e s t h e y have a
h i g h degree of h i s t o r i c a l s i m i l a r i t y , e s p e c i a l l y a t t h e p r o c e s s u a l l e v e l .
Not t h a t I seek t o minimise t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between them, b u t we s h o u l d see
t h a t t h o s e d i f f e r e n c e s o r s i m i l a r i t i e s o n l y become i m p o r t a n t i n t h e c o n t e x t
-
.
of t h e q u e s t i o n s t h a t t h e h i s t o r i c a l archaeologist i n e i t h e r country seeks
answers f o r . D i s t i n c t i v e n e s s i s thus contextual, a s i s s i m i l a r i t y .
T h i s w a r i n e s s of t h e USA i s e x t e n d e d t o a v i e w t h a t much of t h e v a s t
o u t p u t of American h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y (even t h e t h e o r e t i c a l s t u f f ) i s
of q u e s t i o n a b l e r e l e v a n c e t o A u s t r a l i a . A p a r t from t h e d i f f e r e n c e s of
h i s t o r y , B a i r s t o w c i t e s i s s u e s of p r a c t i c e which s u p p o s e d l y s t r e n g t h e n h e r
c a l l f o r c a u t i o n i f n o t o u t r i g h t r e j e c t i o n . The u s e of t h e h y p o t h e t i c o d e d u c t i v e approach i s one such i s s u e , t h e a l l i a n c e with p r e h i s t o r i c
a r c h a e o l o g y ( l a t e r e x t e n d e d t o a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y i n g e n e r a l ) , and
t h e r e j e c t i o n of h i s t o r y a s a n o m o t h e t i c d i s c i p l i n e a r e o t h e r s . T h i s c a n n o t
b e c o n s t r u e d s i m p l y a s a r e j e c t i o n of borrowing c o n c e p t s , c a t e g o r i e s o r
t h e o r i e s - a n a p p r o a c h t o t h e o r y b u i l d i n g i n a r c h a e o l o g y w i t h a l o n g and
n o b l e h i s t o r y , f o r s h e l a t e r e m p h a s i s e s t h e v a l u e of h i s t o r y , s o c i o l o g y , and
economics.
I n s t e a d s h e i s a r g u i n g t h a t b e c a u s e of t h e d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t of
A u s t r a l i a n h i s t o r y (ergo i t s h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y ) , a r c h a e o l o g i s t s h e r e
s h o u l d b e s p a r e d f r o m t h e i m p o s i t i o n of e x t e r n a l l y v a l i d a t e d t h e o r e t i c a l
f r a m e w o r k s , s t r i c t b o u n d a r i e s and d e f i n i t i o n s . T h i s i s b e c a u s e , i n t h e
I t s h o u l d n o t have i t s
f i n a l a n a l y s i s i t i s i n t h e p r o c e s s of becoming.
p e c u l i a r i d e n t i t y s t i f l e d a t b i r t h . The n a t u r e of i t s d a t a b a s e s h o u l d b e
t h e p r i m a r y d e t e r m i n a n t of a p p r o p r i a t e t h e o r y and s e n s e of problem.
H e r a p p e a l f o r c a u t i o n t h u s h a s two major j u s t i f i c a t i o n s : ( a ) America
h a s a d i f f e r e n t h i s t o r y ; ( b ) American h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y h a s , b e c a u s e
o f i t s d i f f e r e n t h i s t o r y , p o t e n t i a l l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e a p p r o a c h e s and c o n c e r n s .
Theory b u i l d e r s i n A u s t r a l i a should, t h e r e f o r e , t a k e t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s
s e r i o u s l y enough t o c o n s i d e r a l t e r n a t i v e a p p r o a c h e s t o c o n f i r m a t i o n and
explanation a s w e l l a s t o t h e sources f o r t h e o r e t i c a l inspiration.
N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h i s a p p e a l t o t h e power of c o n t e x t i n t e r m s of n a t i o n a l
h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g i e s and n a t i o n a l h i s t o r i e s , Bairstow argues f o r a
' f i r m t h e o r e t i c a l f r a m e w o r k ' , which presumably s h o u l d o n l y t r a n s c e n d
n a t i o n a l b o u n d a r i e s ( o r even c u l t u r a l o n e s ) i f i t d o e s n o t t r a m p l e import a n t c o n t e x t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s . T h i s framework i s u n d e f i n e d , b u t by t a k i n g
a c c o u n t o f h e r l a t e r emphases on t h e h y p o t h e t i c o - d e d u c t i v e method and on
i n d u c t i v e l o g i c , we c a n s a f e l y h a z a r d a g u e s s t h a t s h e i s t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e
d e v e l o p m e n t of m o d e l s of e x p l a n a t i o n which do n o t do v i o l e n c e t o c o n t e x t
i n t h e p r o c e s s of t h e o r y b u i l d i n g . She seems q u i t e happy t o s a y t h a t t h e
h y p o t h e t i c o - d e d u c t i v e method h a s p r o v i d e d t h i s 'framework' f o r ' t h e Americans'
a n d f o r A u s t r a l i a n p r e h i s t o r i c a r c h a e o l o g i s t s ( t h e l a t t e r must b e news t o
most of t h i s r e a d e r s h i p ) , w i t h o u t d e l v i n g t o o d e e p l y i n t o i t s a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s
f o r t h e g o a l s of t h o s e o r i g i n a l u s e r s .
She t h e n g o e s on t o a r g u e t h a t w h i l e
some A u s t r a l i a n h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g i s t s a l s o a c c e p t t h e h y p o t h e t i c o d e d u c t i v e method a s t h e p r o p e r b a s i s of a ' t h e o r e t i c a l framework', i t i s
simply inappropriate.
T h i s i s f o r two r e a s o n s : ( a ) t h a t i t h a s been d e v e l o p e d f o r a d i f f e r e n t
c o n t e x t , i . e . American a r c h a e o l o g y ; and ( b ) i t i s c l o s e l y i d e n t i f i e d w i t h
t h e p r o c e s s o f e x p l a i n i n g human b e h a v i o u r i n p r e h i s t o r i c c o n t e x t s . A t t h i s
s t a g e I w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r t h e g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n of w h e t h e r t h e h y p o t h e t i c o d e d u c t i v e method i s t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e b a s i s f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n o r explanat i o n , o r i n d e e d w h e t h e r i t c a n b e e f f e c t i v e l y used a s a b a s i s f o r
d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between a l t e r n a t i v e h y p o t h e s e s . R a t h e r , I want t o i n q u i r e
i n t o w h e t h e r B a i r s t o w h a s g i v e n a c o r r e c t a c c o u n t of i t on h e r way t o
d i s p o s i n g o f t h i s symptom of t h e American d i s e a s e . I t t u r n s o u t t h a t
B a i r s t o w i s m i s t a k e n on a t l e a s t two c o u n t s . F i r s t , t h e h y p o t h e t i c o d e d u c t i v e method was n o t & v e l ~ p e c i f o r American p r e h i s t o r i c a r c h a e o l o g y .
B i n f o r d and o t h e r s a c q u i r e d i t mainly from Hempel ( o n l y one of a h o s t of
p h i l o s o p h e r s c o n c e r n e d w i t h i t s development a s a n o d e l of e x p l a n a t i o n ) , who
was, i n f a c t , providing a model of s c i e n t i f i c e x p l a n a t i o n based on a
c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s of s u c c e s s f u l s c i e n t i f i c e x p l a n a t i o n i n p h y s i c s , astronomy
and chemistry. I t i s a model of s c i e n t i f i c e x p l a n a t i o n , n o t simply of
s c i e n t i f i c a r c h a e o l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n . Second, t h e h y p o t h e t i c o - d e d u c t i v e
method h a s n o t been e x c l u s i v e l y used by a r c h a e o l o g i s t s , e i t h e r p r e h i s t o r i c
o r h i s t o r i c . Many h i s t o r i a n s ( p e r h a p s misguidedly) have c o n s i d e r e d i t a n
a p p r o p r i a t e model of s c i e n t i f i c e x p l a n a t i o n i n h i s t o r y a s w e l l . B a i r s t o w
seems n o t t o r e a l i s e t h a t what i s a t i s s u e h e r e i s a model of s c i e n t i f i c
e x p l a n a t i o n , n o t any k i n d of e x p l a n a t i o n .
It is an a l t o g e t h e r d i f f e r e n t
q u e s t i o n when we a s k whether i t i s a n a p p r o p r i a t e model f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n
and e x p l a n a t i o n i n a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s c i e n c e , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e s
between archaeology and o t h e r d i s c i p l i n e s such a s p h y s i c s and astronomy.
Concerning t h e p a r t i c u l a r s of t h e h i s t o r i c a l development of American
archaeology, we f i n d t h e hoary argument t h a t a r c h a e o l o g i s t s g o t i n t o
anthropology t h e r e because I n d i a n s i t e s had no r e c o r d e d h i s t o r y .
Further,
t h a t t h e aim of t h e e x e r c i s e was t o l i n k t h e p a s t w i t h t h e p r e s e n t by way
of ethnographic a n a l o g i e s ( i n c i d e n t a l l y s t a n d a r d p r a c t i c e i n European
archaeology a s w e l l ) . Anthropology (by which I t h i n k s h e means s o c i o c u l t u r a l anthropology) provided t h e t h e o r e t i c a l framework of American
archaeology because of t h e l a c k of w r i t t e n documents. T h i s , t h e n , i s t h e
substance of t h e argument l i n k i n g p r e h i s t o r y w i t h anthropology i n America.
By e x t e n s i o n t h e same argument h o l d s good f o r p r e h i s t o r i c a r c h a e o l o g y i n
I have mentioned t h a t
A u s t r a l i a , o r anywhere e l s e . In f a c t , i t d o e s n ' t .
t h e American commitment t o ethnographic analogy was a l s o s h a r e d by t h e preh i s t o r i a n s of o t h e r c o u n t r i e s . However, t h e e x t e n t of a commitment t o a n
anthropoZogicaZ framework of a n a l y s i s i s much more p r o b l e m a t i c . The argument t u r n s on t h e n o t i o n of anthropology b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d . H i s t o r i c a l l y
speaking, although a l l a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s s h a r e d t o some e x t e n t a commitment
t o g e n e r a l i s a t i o n , t h e c o n c e p t u a l i s a t i o n of a n t h r o p o l o g y i n B r i t a i n and
A u s t r a l i a was d i f f e r e n t from t h a t i n t h e USA.
A l l t h i s would b e worth a chuckle i f t h e same m i s t a k e was n o t b e i n g
c o n t i n u a l l y made. The anthropology t h a t W i l l e y and P h i l l i p s were r e f e r r i n g
t o was n o t s o c i o - c u l t u r a l anthropology, b u t t h e g e n e r a l i s i n g d i s c i p l i n e of
anthropology i t s e l f . T h i s i s composed of f o u r f i e l d s which spanned much of
t h e evidence of human behaviour when t h e i d e a of anthropology was f i r s t
mooted i n t h e 1860s i n France and England. These were a r c h a e o l o g y ( t h e
m a t e r i a l evidence of p a s t human a c t i o n ) , s o c i o - c u l t u r a l a n t h r o p o l o g y ( t h e
c o n t e x t and i d e n t i t y of a c t i o n i n t h e p r e s e n t ) , p h y s i c a l a n t h r o p o l o g y
( p r i m a r i l y morphological and p h y s i o l o g i c a l e v i d e n c e of change and v a r i a t i o n
i n t h e human p h y s i c a l form), and l i n g u i s t i c s ( i n c o r p o r a t i n g d e s c r i p t i v e
l i n g u i s t i c s and glottochronology)
Explanation of human a c t i o n , i n f a c t
t h e i d e n t i t y of human b e i n g s , was conceived of a s b e i n g based on i n f o r m a t i o n
from a l l f o u r f i e l d s . How e l s e could a meaningful account of human b e h a v i o u r
i n t h e p r e s e n t be produced without an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of i t s h i s t o r i c a l
trajectories?
While g e n e r a l i s a t i o n was r a r e l y a t t e m p t e d i n everyday p r a c t i c e , t h e r e
was a c l e a r i n t e n t i o n t h a t t h i s would one day t a k e p l a c e , once we had
s o r t e d out t h e p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s of a r e a s and c u l t u r e s and d e f i n e d o u r t e r m s
operationally. This e s s e n t i a l l y empiricist a t t i t u d e recognised t h a t t h e r e
was c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n i n human a c t i o n p a s t and p r e s e n t , and s o u g h t
d i a c h r o n i c understanding of t h e t r a j e c t o r i e s of human a c t i o n i n p a r t i c u l a r
a r e a s . The e q u a t i o n of s p e c i f i c human groups w i t h p a r t i c u l a r a r e a s ( c u l t u r e )
was an u n s u r p r i s i n g outcome, b e s t seen i n t h e work of R a t z e l , M o n t e l i u s ,
.
Childe and Wissler. The fact that written documents appeared towards the
end of this process only made the job easier. They functioned in much the
same way as ethnographic analogy, providing an empirically att-estedfoundation for models to be taken back into prehistory. Those written documents
lid not cancel out the anthropological framework of analysis.
W.W. Taylor's call for 'culture idea' and 'meaning manifest' was part
of this trend towards the theoretical primacy of an understanding of the
particularities of cultural context. Yet there was also a requirement of
generalisation, both at the explanatory and classificatory levels. In
~aylor'sview description was simply not enough, and explanation could only
arise from the construction of general hypotheses. Following the positivist
philosophy of his time, archaeology could only become a science (hence
produce reliable and relevant knowledge of the prehistoric past) if it
followed that methodology. Our ideas about archaeologically unobservable
entities such as culture, society etc., could be inferred from their observable theoretical referents - depending on the theory of society or culture
that was being entertained by the archaeologist. The point here is that
there was a strong belief that archaeology had to move beyond the observable
if it was to produce a meaningful and scientific account of the material
remains of human action.
Binford supported this intention too, although with a slightly different
epistemological emphasis. This reflected the primacy of the hypotheticodeductive approach to explanation at that time, which Binford and others
acquired, quite uncritically, as a standard model of scientific explanation.
It is nonsense to claim that the 'American hypothetico-deductive approach
to archaeology arose as a means of interpreting sites which had no documented
history' (p.33).
What in fact was happening was that the interpretation of
such sites was grounded in general anthropological, ecological and historical
theory, the models of appropriate explanation being provided by the hypotheticodeductive method.
Finally, the American context of the hypothetico-deductive method is
also overstated. David Clarke, in his disagreement with the empiricist
approaches of Daniel and Piggott (see Klejn 1977), cited Braithwaite with
approval, but had little connection with the American usage of anthropology.
The point here is that the hypothetico-deductive method made a claim to
being a universally valid model of scientific explanation. It was considered
to work in Poughkeepsie just as well as in Alma Ata, and for physics just
as well as in history.
Since the 1960s considerable work has been devoted to an understanding
of the nature of scientific explanation, much of it bypassed until recently
in discussions of explanation in archaeology. Things are slowly changing
from the bad old days so effectively reviewed by Klejn (1977), Salmon
(1982a) and Wylie (1982a), where the hypothetico-deductive method, covering
law approaches, and strict anti-induction were the order of the day (see
e.g. Binford 1965, 1977; Fritz and Plog 1970; Hill 1972; Tuggle et a l . 1972;
Watson et a l . 1971). Explanation, the approaches to warranting claims to
knowledge, and the means of building archaeological theory are now beginning
to take on the more subtle nuances found in the philosophical literature.
They are also being considered in much more archaeological terms. The
special conditions of explanation, justification and theory building in
archaeological science have forced some tailoring of models developed for
other sciences. In particular Salmon's (1982a and 1982b) attacks on the
propriety of the hypothetico-deductive method and her advocacy of
Statistical Relevance and Inductive Statistical models of explanation,
and the Bayesian framework of confirmation which takes into account the
importance of prior probability, should be mentioned. Wylie (1982a and
1982b) has produced a strong critique of positivist epistemology in
archaeology, a point which is also shared by Miller (1982) among others
for somewhat different reasons.
If explanation is no longer seen as being such a simple affair, it is
also something we find it increasingly difficult to agree about. In concert
with a move against rigid deductivism there has been the development of at
least three different schools of explanation: the deductive-nomoZogicaZ
(based on Hempel, Popper, Nagel and Braithwaite); the contextual (based on
the later Wittgenstein, Scriven and Khun); and the realist (based on Rom
Harre and Roy Bhaskar).
Apart from Salmon (1982a) and Wylie (1982a) most
recent general accounts of the philosophy of science will provide good
general surveys of the arguments and their justifications. All of this
disagreement does not hide the fact that most commentators agree that
rational means of assessing explanations are necessary (all agree that some
appeal to empirical data is mandatory) if archaeology is to become a science.
The point here is that the emphasis on any one of these models of explanation are within the context of moves towards the scientific status of
archaeology, not necessarily the models used to interpret the archaeological
data, Although Bairstow's equation of the hypothetico-deductive method with
prehistory is misconceived, it turns out for reasons other than those she
has offered, that the hypothetico-deductive method may well be inappropriate
for archaeology whatever the period. However, this does not mean that
current models of explanation in archaeology (developed primarily for
prehistoric contexts) are inappropriate too. I repeat that the issue here
is one of methodology and epistemology - within a scientific context.
Procedures that allow for a rational choice between alternative hypotheses
are still considered necessary by the majority of philosophers of science.
If historical archaeology in Australia is not to be a science then such
criteria of adjudication between rival hypotheses or means of warranting
claims to knowledge need not be mandatory.
As if this were not enough she goes on to tell us, presumably as part
of her case for rejecting the imperialist pretensions of prehistory, that
'the Americans' reduced the scope of archaeology to mean excavation alone.
This is a strange charge indeed in these days of survey, non-destructive
investigative measures, ethnoarchaeology/modern material culture studies,
and their widely-held belief that archaeology is a discipline primarily
concerned at the theoretical level with accounting for the relationships
irrespective of space and time. To be
between people and material things
sure, excavation remains important to archaeology, but it is not, and never
has been all there is to it. Bairstow overgeneralises. Citations from
Griffin, Spauling and South do not encompass the totality of views on the
question.
Overgeneralisation and unfamiliarity with more modern work in archaeology and the philosophy of history also plagues Bairstow's brief discussion
of archaeologists attitudes to history. No doubt about it, back in the
heady days of the 1960s Binford, Spaulding and others held the view that
history was idiographic, not nomothetic. Hence it was considered by them
to be a horse of a different theoretical colour to anthropology (read
anthropological archaeology). At that time there were legions of historians
who supported that view (there probably still are out in the backblocks
where recent work arrives once a year carried on the backs of donkeys).
However, once again things have changed. Even at the height of the attack
on history's nomothetic status there were historians as well as archaeologists prepared to defend this tradition of historical analysis (see
-
T r i g g e r 1 9 7 8 ) . T h e r e was a d i v e r s i t y o f o p i n i o n on t h e i s s u e , a s t h e r e
s t i l l i s . The d e b a t e between h i s t o r i c i s m and t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of s p a t i a l l y
a n d t e m p o r a l l y u n i v e r s a l l y v a l i d l a w s of t h e h i s t o r i c a l p r o c e s s i s a s o l d
I t shows no s i g n s of l e t t i n g - u p , b e c a u s e i t
a s t h e 17th century.
r e m a i n s a p e r s p e c t i v a l i s s u e . T h a t i s , t h e r e i s s t i l l no c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n ,
o t h e r t h a n t h a t o f p e r s p e c t i v e , t o c h o o s e e i t h e r one of t h e s e p a t h s .
Nowadays a r c h a e o l o g i s t s h a v e t o b e much more c a r e f u l w i t h terms l i k e
' u n s c i e n t i f i c ' , b u t i n t h e f i r s t f l u s h of l o g i c a l e m p i r i c i s m , h i s t o r y b a s h i n g was c o n s i d e r e d t o b e a n i m p o r t a n t p a r t of a s c i e n t i f i c approach t o
It i s s i m p l y u n t r u e t o c l a i m t h a t t h i s d o c t r i n e was b o r n
archaeology.
It was a b r o a d a l o n g t i m e b e f o r e t h e most
o u t of p r e h i s t o r i c a r c h a e o l o g y .
r e c e n t new a r c h a e o l o g y was mooted. D e s p i t e B i n f o r d ' s v i e w s on t h e s u b j e c t ,
t h e e x c l u s i o n of h i s t o r y a s a s o u r c e o f h y p o t h e s e s a b o u t t h e n a t u r e of p a s t
human a c t i o n c a n i n no s e n s e b e j u s t i f i e d .
T h i s d o e s n o t mean t h a t t h o s e
hypotheses cannot b e r e j e c t e d a s being inappropriate f o r a n understanding
of t h e a r c h a e o l o g y , b u t t h i s must b e d e c i d e d on a case-by-case b a s i s .
However, t h e n o t i o n t h a t h i s t o r y and h i s t o r i c a l t h e o r y b e i n g something
f i x e d by a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t h e c u r r e n t c o n c e r n s and t h e o r e t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n s of h i s t o r i a n s i s e q u a l l y u n j u s t i f i a b l e . A l l d i s c i p l i n e s a r e t o t h i s
e x t e n t j u s t l i k e A u s t r a l i a n h i s t o r i c a l archaeology, they a r e not i n t h e
p r o c e s s o f becoming, t h e y s i m p l y are. B a i r s t o w ' s i m p l i c i t a p p e a l t o t h e
s e p a r a t e d i s c i p l i n a r y s t a t u s of h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y t h u s b e g i n s t o l o o k
i n c o h e r e n t , a s d o e s h e r e x p l i c i t a p p e a l t o h i s t o r y b e i n g some k i n d of
u n i v e r s a l category f i x e d i n terms of c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e .
When we c o n s i d e r t h e c o n t e x t of t h e o r y b u i l d i n g i n h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y
we must t a k e a c c o u n t of what h i s t o r i a n s , a r c h a e o l o g i s t s , s o c i o l o g i s t s ,
e c o n o m i s t s a n d a h o s t of o t h e r p r a c t i t i o n e r s have t o s a y a b o u t t h e p a r t i c u l a r
p l a c e , p e r i o d o r p r o c e s s under review.
C l e a r l y t h o s e e x p l a n a t i o n s produced
by t h e h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g i s t s t h a t e i t h e r s q u a r e w i t h o r come t o t e r m s
w i t h t h e p e r s p e c t i v e s of t h o s e o t h e r i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s a r e g o i n g t o s t a n d
a much g r e a t e r c h a n c e of c o n v i n c i n g t h e b r o a d r a n g e of p e o p l e .
I n some
c i r c u m s t a n c e s we c a n h y p o t h e s i s e t h a t s u c h agreement w i l l b e d i f f i c u l t ,
s i m p l y b e c a u s e of t h e d i f f e r e n t t y p e of d a t a a r c h a e o l o g i s t s have t o d e a l
with.
I n t h o s e i n s t a n c e s t h e a r c h a e o l o g i s t w i l l have t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t
t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f f e r e d b e t t e r e x p l a i n s t h e m a t e r i a l which i s
a l s o i n t h e p r o v i n c e of t h o s e o t h e r p r a c t i t i o n e r s (and which t h e y must a l s o
a c c o u n t f o r ) . T h i s i s no e a s y m a t t e r b e c a u s e i t r e p r e s e n t s a p r o c e s s of
accommodation t h a t i s d i f f i c u l t i n a n environment where d i s c i p l i n a r y boundIt i s t h e t e r m s of t h e i n t e r p l a y
a r i e s a r e t i g h t and s t r o n g l y d e f e n d e d .
b e t w e e n h i s t o r i c a l a n d a r c h a e o l o g i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g s which i s t h e i s s u e
h e r e , T r a d i t i o n a l l y h i s t o r i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g s have c o n s t r a i n e d t h e
a r c h a e o l o g y - t h e y h a v e had t h e g r e a t e r p l a u s i b i l i t y . However, t h e r i s e of
s o c i a l h i s t o r y , of s e m i o l o g y a n d of a r c h a e o l o g y i t s e l f , h a v e g i v e n u s
good g r o u n d s t o s e e a s i m i l a r p l a u s i b i l i t y i n t h e h i s t o r y of t h e i n t e r p l a y
o f human a c t i o n and m a t e r i a l t h i n g s . T h i s i s t h e s p u r t o t h o s e t h e o r i e s of
human b e h a v i o u r - b e h a v i o u r a l a r c h a e o l o g y , which we h a v e been s o s l o w t o
produce.
I m p o r t a n t l y , t h e y a p p l y h e r e j u s t a s much a s t o p r e h i s t o r i c cont e x t s where t h e p l a u s i b i l i t y of o t h e r d i s c i p l i n e s h a s t o b e d e a l t w i t h by
the archaeologist.
The n e x t p h a s e of h e r argument c o n c e r n s t h e d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s of t h e d a t a
of h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y .
While we would a l l a g r e e t h a t e x p l a n a t i o n s of
them s h o u l d a c c o r d w i t h t h e i r e m p i r i c a l i d e n t i t y , t h e r e i s no b a s i s f o r t h e
claim t h a t t h e data themselves, because they a r e d i s t i n c t i v e , w i l l generate
d i s t i n c t i v e t h e o r y . T h e i r d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s , a p a r t from e m p i r i c a l a s p e c t s
l i k e time and space i s t h e r e s u l t of our c u r r e n t u n d e r s t a n d i n g s be t h e y
t h e o r e t i c a l l y based, o r something much more i m p l i c i t o r i n f o r m a l . I
r e i t e r a t e t h a t i t i s c l e a r l y worthwhile imposing performance c r i t e r i a o n
borrowed concepts and c a t e g o r i e s , o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g s , wherever t h e y h a v e
been borrowed from. However, we impose t h e s e c r i t e r i a by using them.
These days i t i s f r a n k l y d i s a p p o i n t i n g t o s e e a n argument t h a t t h e
presence of w r i t t e n documents a l l o w s h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g i s t s t o i n t e r p r e t
t h e i r d a t a more advantageously t h a n p r e h i s t o r i c a r c h a e o l o g i s t s . I p a s s o v e r
t h i s worn-out o b s e r v a t i o n w i t h t h e comment t h a t w r i t t e n documents a r e
advantageous i n i n s t a n c e s where t h e y c o n t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n v i t a l t o t h e
s o l u t i o n of t h e problem a t hand o r i n t h e t e s t i n g o r f o r m u l a t i o n of t h e o r y .
Context i s c r u c i a l h e r e . Landscape, a r t i f a c t s , and a r c h a e o l o g i c a l d a t a a r e
a l l documents. We a l s o know f u l l w e l l by now t h a t w r i t t e n documents,
however numerous, do n o t c o n t a i n t h e t o t a l i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t human
behaviour. I f t h e y d i d , t h e r e would be no need f o r h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y and p r e h i s t o r i c archaeology would b e i n c o h e r e n t , f u l l of s p e c u l a t i v e
imaginings. No doubt w r i t t e n documents p r o v i d e a b r o a d e r c o n t e x t f o r
h i s t o r i c a l archaeology, b u t t h e i r advantage i s p r i m a r i l y problem o r t h e o r y
dependent.
To make m a t t e r s worse Bairstow f o l l o w s t h i s w i t h a c l a i m t h a t ' t h e
Americans' have 'tended t o c o n c e n t r a t e on 1 7 t h c e n t u r y s i t e s . These l a c k
t h e documentation a v a i l a b l e t o s i t e s of l a t e r s e t t l e m e n t . I t i s f o r t h i s
reason, perhaps, t h a t America h a s had t o adopt t h e methods of p r e h i s t o r y t o
i n t e r p r e t h i s t o r i c s i t e s ' , (p.37).
It i s news t o m e t h a t t h e r e i s a conc e n t r a t i o n on s i t e s of t h i s p e r i o d .
Sure, l a r g e n u m b e r s have been i n v e s t i g a t e d , b u t n o t t o t h e e x c l u s i o n of s i t e s of l a t e r p e r i o d s ( e . g . t h o s e
r e p o r t s l i s t e d i n Murray 1983). What is happening h e r e ? Given t h e s e t t l e ment h i s t o r y of t h e USA i t would indeed b e remarkable i f such e a r l y s i t e s
l y i n g on t h e c o a s t s of North America were i g n o r e d . A s f o r t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n ,
on t h e methods of p r e h i s t o r y (whatever they a r e ) , Bairstow s u r e l y must b e
aware of t h e long-standing r e s e a r c h i n t o medieval and e a r l y modern archaeology t h a t does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y imply a c o n c e n t r a t i o n on t h e s e methods.
The reason why ' t h e Americans' s h a r e p e r s p e c t i v e s w i t h t h e i r p r e h i s t o r i a n
c o l l e a g u e s i s because they a r e both a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l a r c h a e o l o g i s t s ( f o r t h e
reasons I e x p l a i n e d above). H e r c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a l a c k of documentary
evidence h a s f o r c e d them i n t o t h e arms of p r e h i s t o r y i s misconceived.
However, t h e r e i s a wide v a r i e t y of approach h e r e t o o . H i s t o r i c a l archaeol o g i s t s such a s Walker (many of them e i t h e r E n g l i s h , t r a i n e d i n England,
o r t r a i n e d by e x p a t r i a t e E n g l i s h ) , who have no commitment t o a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l
archaeology, conduct t h e i r r e s e a r c h e s i n more t r a d i t i o n a l l y h i s t o r i c a l ways.
The g e n e r a l agreement among American h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g i s t s about t h e
v i a b i l i t y of t h e hypothetico-deductive method i s a l s o a g r o s s o v e r s t a t e m e n t
( s e e f o r example t h e work of Leone, Handsman and G l a s s i e l i s t e d i n t h e
bibliography of Murray 1983).
I p a s s over B a i r s t o w ' s comments concerning t h e d i f f e r e n c e between
i n d u c t i o n and deduction i n a r c h a e o l o g i c a l t h e o r y b u i l d i n g w i t h t h e i n j u n c t i o n
t h a t although h e r defence of i n d u c t i o n h a s some m e r i t , she should n o t e t h e
d i f f e r e n c e between theory b u i l d i n g and t h e c r i t e r i a f o r a s s e s s i n g t h e v a l u e
of e x p l a n a t i o n s . I have s a i d b e f o r e t h a t t h e s e i s s u e s a r e w e l l d i s c u s s e d
i n Salmon (1982a) and Wylie (1982a).
Bairstow concludes h e r paper with a p l e a f o r t h e methodological
s i n g u l a r i t y of h i s t o r i c a l archaeology: ' H i s t o r i c a l archaeology i s a new and
dynamic d i s c i p l i n e which should n o t y e t be confined w i t h i n s t r i c t b o u n d a r i e s
o r d e f i n i t i o n s n o r should t h e r e be imposed upon i t anv r i g i d t h e o r e t i c a l
She g o e s on t o complete h e r c o n c l u s i o n by l i n k i n g a
framework' ( p . 3 8 ) .
q u o t e from Walker ( o b v i o u s l y approving i t s s e n t i m e n t s ) : ' I t i s i n a
s i t u a t i o n . . . l and h e r e h e r q u o t e from Walker: ' S i m i l a r t o t h a t i n t h e
f i e l d o f p r e h i s t o r y d u r i n g t h e 1920s and 1930s, when modern t e c h n i q u e s and
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n were b e i n g s y s t e m a t i c a l l y evolved f o r t h e f i r s t time by
p e o p l e who grew up w i t h t h e s u b j e c t ' (Walker 1967:209; Bairstow 1984:38).
T h i s seems an odd c h o i c e of c o n c l u s i o n f o r Bairstow t o o f f e r . T h i s
i s b e c a u s e s h e h a s j u s t s p e n t c o n s i d e r a b l e time t e l l i n g p r e h i s t o r i a n s and
' t h e Americans' t o l e a v e A u s t r a l i a n h i s t o r i c a l archaeology a l o n e s o t h a t i t
c a n work o u t i t s i d e n t i t y i n terms of i t s own d a t a and t h e p e r s p e c t i v e s of
o t h e r i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s such a s t h e h i s t o r i a n s . She seems unable t o a c c e p t
t h a t those other i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s t o a considerable extent define the
n a t u r e of t h e d a t a b a s e s h e b e l i e v e s i s somehow v a l u e f r e e . Whether s h e
l i k e s i t o r n o t , s u c h d a t a i s d e f i n e d and placed i n s t r a i t - j a c k e t s by t h o s e
other disciplines.
The o n l y way t h a t h i s t o r i c a l archaeology can e i t h e r
a s s e s s t h e i r v a l i d i t y o r e s c a p e them i s t o engage i n t h e methodological
d i s c u s s i o n s p r e s e n t i n p r e h i s t o r i c archaeology t h a t s h e h a s p r e v i o u s l y s e t
her face against.
What d o e s t h i s do t o B a i r s t o w ' s argument? Well, f o r a s t a r t i t s t r o n g l y
i m p l i e s t h a t no d i s c i p l i n e o r s u b d i s c i p l i n e i s immune t o t h e t r a d i t i o n s of
r e s e a r c h i n c l o s e l y r e l a t e d f i e l d s . C e r t a i n l y h i s t o r i c a l archaeology ( b e
i f of A u s t r a l i a o r anywhere e l s e ) s h o u l d work o u t a program t h a t s u i t s t h e
v a r i o u s t h e o r e t i c a l and problem c o n t e x t s of i t s m a t e r i a l s , b u t i t can
h a r d l y do t h i s i n i s o l a t i o n .
I f h i s t o r i c a l archaeology i s a new f i e l d
and i t s p r a c t i t i o n e r s a r e t r y i n g t o e s t a b l i s h t h e importance of i t s m a t e r i a l s ,
i t c a n o n l y do so i n t e r m s of c u r r e n t u n d e r s t a n d i n g s and approaches (because
t h e s e have a l l o w e d u s t o s e e i t s p o t e n t i a l v a l u e i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e ) .
T h i s means t h a t h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g i s t s must work through t h e s e unders t a n d i n g ~and a p p r o a c h e s , o t h e r w i s e i t r u n s t h e r i s k of b e i n g i r r e l e v a n t
o r i n c o h e r e n t ( w i t h o u t meaning). How A u s t r a l i a n h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g i s t s
w i l l choose t o do t h i s working through i s a d e c i s i o n f o r t h e p r a c t i t i o n e r s
themselves.
A l l of t h i s r e t u r n s u s t o t h e q u e s t i o n of whether h i s t o r i c a l archaeology
forms a d i s c i p l i n e i n i t s e l f , o r i s simply a s u b f i e l d of archaeology d e f i n e d by t h e temporal c o n t e x t of i t s m a t e r i a l s and by t h e t y p e s of d a t a
which have s u r v i v e d t h e d e p o s i t i o n and site-abandonment p r o c e s s e s , a s w e l l
a s o t h e r h i s t o r i c a l dccuments. American h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g i s t s f a c e d
t h i s i s s u e decades ago i n t h e c o n f l i c t which e r u p t e d over t h e naming of
t h e f i e l d . Once a g a i n t h e r e was a v a r i e t y of o p i n i o n s b u t no d e f i n i t i v e
answer. U s e f u l d i s c u s s i o n s of t h e i d e n t i t y of h i s t o r i c a l archaeology can
b e found i n t h e p a p e r s c o l l e c t e d a s Ferguson (1977) and Schuyler (1978).
M y s e l f , I s i d e with S c h u y l e r (1970) - i t i s historic s i t e s a r c h a e o l o g y ,
n o t h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y . T h i s view t a k e s i n t o account t h e p a r t i c u l a r
c o n t e x t s of n a t i o n a l h i s t o r i e s w i t h o u t c o n s t r a i n i n g h i s t o r i c a l archaeology
t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of p u r e l y n a t i o n a l i s s u e s . I n t h e f i n a l a n a l y s i s t h e
i n v e s t i g a t i o n of n a t i o n a l i s s u e s and h i s t o r i c a l p r o c e s s e s o f t e n i m p l i e s an
i n t e r e s t i n t h e r e l a t i o n s between t h e h i s t o r y of A u s t r a l i a and t h a t of o t h e r
c o u n t r i e s . An e x c e l l e n t example of t h i s i s t h e 19th c e n t u r y world economy,
t h e o p e r a t i o n s of which c l e a r l y i n f l u e n c e d t h e economic h i s t o r y of A u s t r a l i a ,
t h e USA and o t h e r c o u n t r i e s ( s e e W a l l e r s t e i n 1974, i 9 8 0 ) .
N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g sone s p e c i a l c o n d i t i o n s of i t s d a t a s e t , archaeology
works towards a g e n e r a l p o s i t i o n - of b e i n g a b l e t o u s e t h e m a t e r i a l
r e m a i n s of human a c t i o n t o t e s t o r b u i l d t h e o r i e s of human b e h a v i o u r .
Archaeology d o e s n o t p r o v i d e t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e r e s e a r c h agenda of
There
h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y , b u t i t i s one i m p o r t a n t boundary c o n d i t i o n .
a r e o t h e r s such a s h i s t o r y and s o c i o l o g y b u t , j u d g i n g by r e c e n t t r e n d s i n
b o t h of t h e s e d i s c i p l i n e s , t h e p o s i t i o n s of a l l t h r e e d i s c i p l i n e s a r e
becoming more compatible through i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n ( s e e e.g. B r a u d e l 1981;
Deagan 1982; Leary 1980; Outhwaite 1983; S c h u y l e r 1977). I t would b e
unwise t o a r g u e t h a t e i t h e r h i s t o r y , s o c i o l o g y o r a r c h a e o l o g y w i l l remain
unchanged a s a r e s u l t .
REFERENCES
1984 H i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y a t t h e c r o s s r o a d s . An a p p r a i s a l
Bairstow, D.
of t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . Australian ArchaeoZogy 18:32-39
B i n f o r d , L.R.
1965 A r c h a e o l o g i c a l s y s t e m a t i c s and t h e s t u d y of t h e c u l t u r e
p r o c e s s . American Antiquity 3 1 :203-10
B i n f o r d , L.R. ( e d . )
1977
P r e s s : New York
For theory building i n archaeoZogy.
Academic
Birmingham, J . M . and D.N. J e a n s 1983 The Swiss Family Robinson and t h e
archaeology of c o l o n i s a t i o n s . AustraZian Journal of Historicaz
ArchaeoZogy 1:15-21
1981 (1954) The Mediterranean and t h e Mediterranean world
i n the age of PhiZZip 11. 2 v o l s . Fontana: London
B r a u d e l , F.
Avenues of i n q u i r y i n h i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y . I n
(ed. ) Advances i n archaeoZogicaZ method and theory.
Vo1.5:157-78.
Academic P r e s s : New York
Deagan, K.
M.B
1982
. S c h i f f er
Ferguson, L. (ed.)
1977
material things.
H i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y and t h e i m p o r t a n c e of
SHA SpeciaZ PubZications S e r i e s , No. 2
1972 H i s t o r i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y i n A u s t r a l i a .
F r a n k e l , D.
21 (2) :19-22
Fritz, J.M.
and F.T.
Plog
1970
The Etruscan
The n a t u r e of a r c h a e o l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n .
American Antiquity 35:405-12
H i l l , J.M.
1972 The methodological d e b a t e i n contemporary a r c h a e o l o g y :
a model. I n D. C l a r k e ( e d . ) Models i n archaeoZogy , pp .6 1- 107.
Methuen: London
Colonial archaeology i n A u s t r a l i a .
Jack, R . I .
1980
11:18-24
Klejn, L.
1977
18: 1-42
Leary, T.E.
A panorama of t h e o r e t i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y .
1980
1982
Current AnthropoZogy
I n d u s t r i a l a r c h a e o l o g y and i n d u s t r i a l e c o l o g y
History Review 2 1:17 1-82
M i l l e r , D.
AustraZian Archaeo Zogy
.
Radical
E x p l a n a t i o n and s o c i a l t h e o r y i n a r c h a e o l o g i c a l p r a c t i c e .
In C. Renfrew, M. Rowlands and B . S e a g r a v e s ( e d s ) Theory and
a p t a n a t i o n i n archaeotogy. The Southampton Conference, pp.83-95.
Academic P r e s s : New York
Murray, T.
1983 R e l a t i v i s m , c o n s e r v a t i o n p h i l o s o p h y a n d h i s t o r i c a l
a r c h a e o l o g y . I n M. P e a r s o n and H . Temple ( e d s ) Historical
H e r i t a g e Council
archaeology and conservation philosophy, pp.2-17.
of New South Wales: Sydney
O u t h w a i t e , W.
Salmon, X.
Concept formation i n social science.
1983
1982a
PhiZosophy and archaeology.
RKP: London
Academic P r e s s : New York
1982b Models o f e x p l a n a t i o n : two v i e w s . I n C. Renfrew,
Salmon, M.
M. Rowlands a n d B. S e a g r a v e s ( e d s ) Theory and explanation i n
archaeology. The Southampton Conference, pp.35-44.
Academic P r e s s :
New York
S c h u y l e r , R.L.
1970 H i s t o r i c a l and h i s t o r i c s i t e s a r c h a e o l o g y a s
a n t h r o p o l o g y : b a s i c d e f i n i t i o n s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Historical
Archueo Zogy 4 :83-89
S c h u y l e r , R.L.
1977 The s p o k e n word, t h e w r i t t e n word, o b s e r v e d b e h a v i o u r
and preserved behaviour: t h e c o n t e x t s a v a i l a b l e t o a r c h a e o l o g i s t s .
The Conference on Historic S i t e s Archaeology Papers 10 :99-1 20
(ed.)
1978 Historical archaeozogy: a guide t o substantive
and t h e o r e t i c a l contributions. Baywood: F a r m i n g d a l e , New York
S c h u y l e r , R.L.
T r i g g e r , B.G.
Aims i n p r e h i s t o r i c a r c h a e o l o g y . I n B. T r i g g e r ( e d . )
Edinburgh U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s :
1978
Time and t r a d i t i o n s , pp.19-36.
Edinburgh
T u g g l e , D . H . , A.H. Townsend a n d T.J. R i l e y 1972 Laws, s y s t e m s of l a w s
and r e s e a r c h designs: a d i s c u s s i o n of explanation i n archaeology.
American Antiquity 37:3-12
1921 The f r o n t i e r i n American h i s t o r y .
Turner, F.J.
W i n s t o n : New York
Walker, I .C .
1978 (1967)
H i s t o r i c a l archaeology
-
H o l t , R i n e h a r t and
method and p r i n c i p l e s .
I n R . S c h u y l e r ( e d . ) Historical archaeoZogy: a guide t o substantive
and t h e o r e t i c a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s , pp.208-215.
Baywood: F a r m i n g d a l e
Walker, I . C .
1967
H i s t o r i c a l archaeology
-
method and p r i n c i p l e s .
H i s t o r i c a l ArchaeoZogy 1 :23-24
W a l l e r s t e i n , I . 1974
New York
The modem world-system.
Vol.1.
Academic P r e s s :
W a l l e r s t e i n , I . 1980
New York
The modem world-system.
Vol..?!.
Academic P r e s s :
S.A. LeBlanc and C.L. Redman 1971 Explarzztion i n archaeology:
an e x p l i c i t l y s c i e n t i f i c app200ch. Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s :
Watson, P . J . ,
New York
Wesson, J.P.
1983
Australia.
A f i r s t bibliography of h i s t o r i c a l archaeology i n
Australian Journul o f Historical Archaeology 1:22-34
1982a Positivism and the new archaeotogy. PhD t h e s i s , SUNY
Wylie, A.
Binghampton. U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m I n t e r n a t i o n a l : Ann A r b o r ,
Michigan
Wylie, A.
1982b E p i s t e m o l o g i c a l i s s u e s r a i s e d by a s t r u c t u r a l i s t a r c h a e o logy. I n I. Hodder ( e d . ) Structural and symbolic archaeology,
pp.39-46.
Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s : Cambridge
The U n i v e r s i t y of Sydney
Sydney NSW 2006
ERRATUM NOTICE
We d o n ' t make many m i s t a k e s , b u t when we do
...
I n J o n e s and A l l e n ' s ' A r c h a e o l o g i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t h e Andrew
River V a l l e y , Acheron R i v e r V a l l e y and a t P r e c i p i t o u s B l u f f , Southwest
Tasmania, February 1984 Austmlian Archaeology 19 :86-101, r e a d e r s w i l l
have found d i f f i c u l t i e s b e g i n n i n g a t t h e bottom of page 94. G r e m l i n s
i n t h e p r i n t e r y have p u t t h e pages o u t o f o r d e r , s o t h e n e x t t i m e you
r e a d t h i s worthy a r t i c l e t r y r e a d i n g t h e m i d - s e c t i o n of i t i n t h e
f o l l o w i n g page o r d e r - 94, 96, 97, 95, 98. I t ' s a snap r e a l l y , when
you g e t t h e hang of i t . Eds.