154 Book Reviews
THE BIRTH OF PREHISTORIC CHRONOLOGY:
DATING METHODS AND DATING SYSTEMS I N
NINETEENTH-CENTURYSCANDINAVIAN
ARCHEOLOG): by Bo Graslund. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge (1987).
ISBN 0 521 32249 9 (hardcover). Price
$81.
Reviewed by Tim Murray
Department of Archaeology, La Trobe University,
Bundoora Vic 3083
Until the advent of the 1980sthe history of archaeology held a peripheralplace in the worldview of most
archaeologists. True, some teachers may have
recognised that it was a powerfultool for introducing
budding archaeologiststo the cultural norms of the
discipline, but this was probably more the exception
than the rule. Again, historically aware practitioners
may have r e c o g n i d that each new account of
archaeological goals and procedures incorporates
a history of the discipline which justifies and makes
sense of these new approaches, but the bulk of their
attention was directed to flghting battles with contemporaries - not the shades of the past.
It is significant that although there has been a great
deal written about the history of the discipline, precious little work has appeared which purports to
examine the methodology of such history writing.
This absence, in a discipline whose practitioners
appear to like nothing better than to engage in
method talk', has been a puzzle to the new generation of historians of archaeology. They have found
!t altogether curious that even while conventional
history of ideas' style histories were being written
(such as Daniel's 150 Years ofArchaeology or Willey
and Sabloff's A History of American Archaeology),
trenchant criticisms of these approaches from both
within and without the discipline were largely ignored. It is even harder to understand this
unthinking attitude when we recall that from the
1960s onwards archaeologists have been employing epistemologies which have their origins in the
historical analysis of sciences such as physics,
chemistry, biology and geology,
Fortunately flow-on effects of such historicallybased epistemologies provide answers to our
questions. They also suggest fruitful methodologies
for a new generation of disciplinary histories. In
common with so much of archaeological practice,
uncritical attitudes, inadequate methodologies and
the peripheral position of the history of archaeology
can be sourced directly to the dominance of a
positivist disciplinary epistemology. If one sees
science as a universal method then historical context is unimportant beyond demonstrating previous
successes or shortcomings. Little attention need be
paid to exploring the special conditions of archaeological practice - we need only chart the
upward path of the discipline from irrational specula-
tion to our currently more enlightened state. Furthermore, if we accept (as positivists do) that fact
and value are distinguishable and the greater
reliability on empirical knowledge over theoretical
knowledge, then analyses have no critical role in the
development of archaeological epistemology.
Rather, such developments should flow from attempts to square archaeological practice with the
putative universals of scientific practice. Furthermore, archaeologists should only be prepared to
assess the reliability of knowledge claims in the
terms of those universals.
Since the 1980s (probably since the dissemination
of Wylie's doctoral dissertation Positivism and the
New Archaeology (1982)), we have been given a
warrant for beginning the long battle against the
dominance of positivism in archaeology. The writing of new disciplinary histories is a crucial task in
that battle. Although the new generation of historians disagree over a great many matters it is fair
to say that they are fully aware of the pressing need
to understand the development of archaeology in its
own terms. They are also aware that previous histories (with the possible exception of the work of
Stuart Piggott) are a minefield of unexamined assumptions and attitudes that require intensive
deconstruction. This process of deconstruction has
been aided by the publication of Grayson's useful,
though flawed analysis of mid-nineteenth century
geology, palaeontology and archaeology (The Establishment of Human Antiquity (1983)) and by the
present work.
Both books have reanalysed
episodes which are widely acknowledged as being
absolutely critical to the successful foundation of a
science of prehistoric archaeology and heightened
rather than lessened their significance.
Graslund has an extraordinarily difficult task of
deconstruction, given the thousands of words which
have appeared about Thomsen, Worsaae, Nilsson
and Montelius, and the significanceof theThree Age
system in archaeology. This deconstruction is
regrettablylight on recreating the social and cultural
milieu of nineteenth century Scandinavian archaeology. I do not think that the potted biographies,
which appear as an appendix to the text, get
Graslund off the hook. Nor do I think that his advice
that interested readers should consult works such
as Klindt-Jensen's A History of Scandinavian Archaeology (1975) without mentioning other more
useful works such as Kristiansen's analysis of the
culture of Danisharchaeology (appearingin Daniel's
Towards a History of Archaeology (1981)), absolve
him of the need to include such social and cultural
context in his analysis. For example, among other
things he fails to consider the implications of
Worsaae's membership of the Danish nationalist
movement The Young Danes. Again, his discussion
of the work of Lindenschmidt and of Kossinna (particularly of their difficulties with Scandinavian
reconstructions of European prehistoric chrondogy) does not pay due attention to the power of an
emergent German nationalist ideology.
There are other shortcomings which might be men-
Book Reviews
tioned, but listing these will not radically alter my
claim that Graslund has not succeeded in producing
a definitive analysis of his subject. Notwithstanding
this objection, there is no doubt that the author has
made a major contribution to that task. The work is
exceptionally strong on the methodology of dating
systems. Leaving aside the first two chapters for a
moment, chapters 3-14 (the penultimate chapter)
cover an amazing range of systems, contexts and
personalities. I admire his discussion of Thomsen.
Nilsson and Worsaae, but I was particularly impressed with his analysis of the work of Hans
Hilderbrand, Miiller, and of that powerhouse of latenineteenth century archaeology, Oscar Montelius.
These are giants and heroes indeed. Of course he
is absolutely right- historians of archaeology who
read only English, French and German have really
missed the significance of internal Scandinavian
debates. We owe Graslund a great debt of gratitude
for breaking over a century of silence on that subject.
But Graslund wants to achieve more than this. He
wants archaeologists to review their understanding
of the significance of dating systems of nineteenth
century Scandinavian archaeology so that they
might re-learn some basic lessons about the nature
of archaeological data:
In judging the contribution made by Scandinavian archaeology ... emphasis has, first and
foremost, been placed on the development of the
typological method. Without doubt, the ernergence of typologyas a dating method has greatly
influenced archaeology as whole, in a positive as
well as a negative sense. In this book I will try to
explain that the development of this concept and
method was preceded by and closely connected
with the construction of a chronological
framework primarily through the evidence
provided by the finds.
In my opinion, the most important contribution
of Scandinavian archaeology to the development of chronological methods was not typology
as a means of dating, but the early understanding
of careful observations of the find contexts in
combination with the development of a closer
type analysis and type classification. The
gradual refinement of the chronological analysis
of find observations was by far the most import a n t achievement: t h e very basis of the
development of archaeology form a speculative
antiquarianism to a sound science (p.1-2).
To this end much of the first chapter and all of the
second (The conceptual framework) are devoted to
a conceptual analysis of dating by types. Read in
conjunction with Klejn's masterpiece (Archaeological Typology (1982)), it had sufficient interest to
serve more general purposes than simply to justify
Graslund's claims for the significance of find contexts in the development of Scandinavian dating
systems.
On balance I believe that Graslund has produced a
significant work that, despite its high price, should
155
be valued by practitioners beyond a good summer
holiday read.
Indeed. I think he has aptly
demonstrated that it is possible to use the history of
archaeology to actively critique contemporary practice - a phenomenon still all too rare in the genre.
READING THE PAST, by lan Hodder. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge. (1986).
194pp. ISBN 0 521 327431 (hardcov.) 0
521 33960X (paperback). Price $23.50
(paperback)
Reviewed by Bruno David
Department of Anthropology and Sociology,
University of Queensland, St Lucia Qld 4067
In Symbols in Action Hodder argued that modern
archaeology is based on three main ideas:
1)
material culture is constituted meaningfully;
2)
any appraisal of material culture and social
change must take into account the individual;
and
3)
archaeological explanations must be based on
historical analysis, for a proper understanding of any particular phenomenon must
be able to explain how it becomes from
prior, historical precedents.
Reading the Past is an elaboration of these themes.
Hodder perceives a number of fundamental
shortcomings with established archaeological
theories and practices (and especially with the New
Archaeologies of the U.S.).In this book he lures
these shortcomings out by gradually showing their
theoretical inadequacies, and thence attempts to
establish a methodological framework upon which
a better archaeology can proceed. Ibelieve Hodder
succeeds in his critique of the 'New Archaeologies',
but fails to present any new, practical methodological guidelines upon which his radical critique can be
operationalised.
Nevertheless, in stressing a
theoretical viewpoint already established in other
disciplines (and especially French existentialist
philosophies, although Hodder himself doesn't appear to realise the similarities), he guides our own
archaeological interpretations away from the staleness of the 'economic man' [sic] framework, whose
influence has unfortunately remained too long in the
stagnant pools of much normative functionalism
(and especially American pragmatism). Hodder's
big contribution is therefore that he has established
a radical platform upon which our future
methodologies can be based.
In presenting his critique, Hodder first states the
problem (Chapter l ) , sets out to systematically
criticise established approaches to archaeology
(Chapters 2-4), and then proceeds to construct an