Leading proponents of post-processual archaeology were last night trying desperately to resuscitate the bloated corpse of archaeological theory, in the wake of a wave of backlash against the forced categorization and unnecessary over-intellectualisation which has characterised archaeology since the demise of the New Archaeology.
It all began when hundreds of disenfranchised young researchers across the world started to realise that their current projects could not be stacked into neat little boxes labelled ‘feminist’, ‘cognitive’, or ‘phenomenological’.
Sarah Richards, a postgraduate student from Manchester, explained the predicament. “I was racing to finish the last chapter of my MA thesis, when the thought suddenly struck me that I had at no point explicitly stated my theoretical standpoint,” she said. “So I grabbed my copy of Archaeology: The Key Concepts and frantically searched for a theoretical paradigm which would suitably encompass my research methods and aims. But I just drew a blank: I focus equally on men and women, so is it a feminist approach? I’m interested in cultural change, so is this therefore an exercise in evolutionary archaeology? I also rely on the objective analysis of scientific data – does this make me an old-fashioned, ‘New Archaeologist’?”
Richards’ revelation came when decided that it was better to make her own interpretations than to try and shoe-horn her work into someone else’s understanding of how archaeological remains should be interpreted. “I felt elated,” she told RTP, “Like a great burden had been lifted from my shoulders. Instead of writing about theory, I stuck in a paragraph about why it was all a load of bullshit, and sent the damned thing to the printer.”
This new approach has drawn criticism from the establishment. Dr Tarquin Harvey-Kensington, whose recent publications include Experiencing the Sleep-Scape: Interpreting the Human Environment through Tea-Breaks and Naps, gave a statement to RTP in which he belittled the new approach. Dr Harvey-Kensington said it was “preposterous” that young researchers such as Ms Richards should interpret the past using their own ideas, when “they haven´t even read any Heidegger, for example, or Bourdieu. Or at least a book about them by someone else. I personally would recommend Archaeology: The Key Concepts, it really is rather good”.
Meanwhile Tom Proudfoot, a digger from Peterborough, welcomed the change in approach, saying that not only was it acceptable and indeed useful to draw on different approaches for different purposes, but that sometimes theory was a total waste of space. He showed RTP a pit separated from the houses at a site by some metres’ distance. “See this?” he said, “Habitus tells us that the function and nature of this feature were established by the social routine associated with it – the several times a day that people would visit this building both confirmed and re-interpreted its purpose. Phenomenology tells us that we should think beyond its simple utility, and imagine the sights, sounds and smells which would be associated with it. Well, I’d rather not. Just like the ancient inhabitants of this site, I know that this feature is a latrine because of the simple fact that it is full of shit”.
Reporting by Prawn
