“Archaeology isn’t like Major League Baseball. It doesn’t have a commissioner who can wake up one morning and decide to dump the designated hitter or extend the season by two games. It changes because the people who do it—the archaeologists themselves—decide individually that the change is a good thing. And, of course, not everyone goes along with the program. Some people stick to whatever they’ve been doing all along. Others take what seems useful to them—such as a particular technique—and leave the rest” (Praetzellis 38).
This quote from Death by Theory perfectly sums up the reason that archaeology and its theories are constantly evolving. From processual archaeology to postmodern archaeology to neo-evolution and agency theory, Death by Theory addresses the many theories that exist in archaeology. These theories are connected to one another because new theories often stem as a response to existing theories. These theoretical models are like using colored lenses (Praetzellis 148). Each lens provides a unique perspective, but no one lens is able to show all perspectives (Praetzellis 148). It is up to the individual to decide which image and lens is most revealing and profound for their purpose and needs (Praetzellis 148). Archaeologists strive to dig below the surface, literally and metaphorically, to discover why people did the things that they did. This field is full of ambiguity and uncertainty, which is another explanation for why there are so many distinct theories.
New Archaeology, also known as processual archaeology, was created by Lewis Binford in 1962 because he believed that archaeologists should be more like anthropologists (Praetzellis 32). This theory contributes to the social-science theory of human behaviors and cultural evolution (Rice 127). Enthusiasts of new archaeology would rather explain why things happened, instead of simply stating what took place in prehistory (Rice 127). Within processual archaeology is the theory of behaviorism, the belief that humans act passively as a result of their surrounding environment, instead of as individuals acting upon free will (Garroway 27). This branch of archaeology dives deeper into “systems theory” which views cultures as systems of socially transferable behavior patterns that connect humans to their physical surroundings and relies heavily on the theory of behaviorism (Garroway 27).
Processual archaeology immediately received a lot of criticism, and post-processual and postmodern theories were developed as a result. Some of the weaknesses of processual archaeology are the lack of agency, the idea of environmental determinism, the view of cultures as homeostatic, the objectivity of interpretation, and the failure to take gender, ethnicity, and other social relations into account (Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias, 2010).
Another theory of archaeology, postmodernism, is a type of “contextual or interpretive archaeology” (Praetzellis 136). Postmodernists believe that artifacts hold no fixed meaning that archaeologists can discover because the meaning of an artifact depends on the context it was used in (Praetzellis 136). Interpretive archaeologists do not make factual claims about artifacts and discoveries because they recognize that there is no way to definitively know what happened in the past. Instead, these archaeologists offer personal interpretations and explanations about their findings. Postmodernism “rejects totalities, universal values, grand historical narratives, solid foundations to human existence, and the possibility of objective knowledge” (Keene 36). The postmodern accepts pluralism, heterogeneity, relativism and rejects elitism in culture and the concept of objective truth (Keene 36).
On the contrary, this process could be considered “hopelessly relativistic” and is looked at skeptically because people have trouble making sense of what a reasonable approach to understanding the past is if there are no actual past, facts, or understandable meanings (Praetzellis 137). Critics of postmodernism argue that its weakness is its lack of coherence and structure. Some people think that postmodernism is a meaningless theory because of how unstructured it is.
Neo-evolutionism is a social theory that aims to elucidate the evolution of societies by drawing from Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. These neo-evolutionists assume that societies adapt and that adaptation is the reason for many societal changes (Praetzellis 125). By understanding the big questions, neo-evolutionists work to figure out why modern society is structured the way it is (Praetzellis 126). A key element of neo-evolutionism is the idea of agency which means that people act as agents of change in their own lives (Praetzellis 127). The underlying belief here is that individuals have the power to affect history (Praetzellis 127). Determinists see the big picture and look at societies as groups of people acting in culturally predictable ways as a result of their environment (Praetzellis 127). Neo-evolutionism is about the “adaptive qualities of behavior” and “although evolutionary forces are manipulating us at some deep level, people can and do affect the course of their own histories” (Praetzellis 128). Nothing would change or evolve without people, and that is the work of agency (Praetzellis 132).
This idea of agency is the opposite of new archaeology’s emphasis on behaviorism. In processual archaeology, people act based on their ecological environment, and in neo-evolutionism, people act according to their free will. New archaeology is often criticized for lacking agency, which is present in neo-evolutionism. Agency theory is more relevant to postmodernism because both emphasize individualism and free will. Postmodern archaeology is very theoretical compared to processual archaeology, which is scientifically and materialistically driven. Neo-evolutionism is a combination of theory and science because it is based on the theory of evolution, which is a theory that is generally accepted to be true.
Neo-evolutionism, too, has had its fair share of criticism. Some critics think that by emphasizing the role of the environment, cultural ecologists are not taking historical and political factors into account (Antweiler). A major critique is that neo-evolutionism collides with evolutionary theory (Antweiler). According to Antweiler, “neo-evolutionist interpretations mostly invoke mono-causal explanations for long-term cultural change, quite contrary to the poly-factorial explanations of evolutionary biology” (Antweiler).
The theory that I found most compelling was postmodernism. Growing up, I was always very curious. I loved to ask questions about the world and everything that was going on around me. This is one reason why I was drawn to postmodernism, because it questions universal truths, science, and other general laws of archaeology. These archaeologists are not afraid of the unknown. I found postmodernism very captivating because of how open-ended and subjective it is. I was also intrigued by the idea that postmodernism celebrates diversity, fragmentation, and uncertainty as opposed to “seeking order, coherence, regularity, and general laws” (Fahlander 110). I have recently noticed myself questioning more things instead of just accepting general truths. As an inquisitive, open-minded individual, postmodern archaeology is super interesting because it encourages curiosity and offers a more interpretive approach of archaeology and its processes. Postmodernism gives people the opportunity to create their own future and reality.
Part 2:
Politics in archaeology has to do with achieving and asserting power (Norton). The way for archaeologists, such as Ian Tuliver, to gain political power in the archaeological world is by making a big discovery. In Death by Theory, Ian Tuliver and Hannah Green made the trip to Dougal’s Island to excavate a site owned by Ollie Bott, because Bott wanted to turn his land into a retreat center. For Tuliver, this was the perfect opportunity to gain political power in the field, because he believed that these discoveries were going to make him famous. This ancient site was of interest to Tuliver because it is in North America and contained Neolithic potsherds that had previously only been found in Europe.
On the Dougal’s Island site, there was a hierarchy structure. Most of the people at the dig were students studying under Tuliver, meaning his authority held as both an employer and academic advisor (Praetzellis 79). Ollie Bott technically owned the rights to the land, so his demands were of utmost importance. Tuliver viewed Bott as the landowner and “just another player” in his path to archaeological greatness (Praetzellis 81). When Terry accidentally fell and discovered what looked like a burial chamber, Tuliver thought he had found his “ticket to the big time” and that institutions would be begging to give him money (Praetzellis 81). As a result of this incredible find, Tuliver felt a sense of political power that he was “calling the shots” now (Praetzellis 81).
Things began to get strange when Tuliver alerted Bott of this discovery and Bott responded by telling Tuliver to close up the unit and cover the burial. Bott asserted his political power by threatening to kick Tuliver and his crew off the island if they did not obey him and by shutting down the only ferry to and from Dougal’s island. This reaction seemed questionable because Ollie had given Tuliver carte blanche to excavate and then demanded an immediate shutdown until International Geographic showed up the following Wednesday. This decision did not sit well with Tuliver, his crew, and his students. Ollie’s attempt at taking control raises the question of who the site really belongs to and who truly controls it. Terry, one of Tuliver’s students, argued that this site was too important to be the property of one person because the information should belong to the people (Praetzellis 82). She went on to explain that this land is a part of everyone’s history and that no one can own the past because it is not something that can be bought or sold. Tuliver believed that the site was his discovery and therefore he had permission to be there and to take charge (Praetzellis 84). Unfortunately for Tuliver, his troubles did not stop with the landowner. The Children of Odin showed up to the land and declared that the bones Tuliver discovered belonged to one of their ancestors and that it was “a sacred remains not to be desecrated by (Tuliver’s) diggings and scrapings” (Praetzellis 84). The Children of Odin claimed that they were spiritual decedents of the land and that they had come to defend their land and bones (Praetzellis 84).
Surprisingly to Tuliver, his initial interaction with the Children of Odin was very sincere and respectful. Tuliver made it clear to Magnus, the leader of the Children of Odin, that he was not giving up on this land. Tuliver believed that the site belonged solely to him and Ollie, and Magnus was not happy with this assertion. This conflict over rights to land is not unique to the example in Dougal’s Island. There are numerous disputes of land ownership in archaeology and in history because people, such as Ollie Bott, buy land legally, and then natives come in and claim that the land was stolen from them and that they have rights to the land because of its historical and cultural significance within their tribe or chiefdom. Another reason, according to Sean, is that the natives believe that some information should not be public because they want to keep sacred places, stories, and rituals within their tribe (Praetzellis 87). Sean brings up the Hopi clan as an example of a native perspective on archaeology. Many indigenous people think that archaeology can be positive and provide them with more information about their clan. However, land that seems ordinary to an archaeologist, might hold an underlying significance for a group of people. For example, the land could be “the place where oral history says that two supernatural beings had a battle” (Praetzellis 87).
When Tuliver woke up to discover that the remains had been stolen, he was furious. In my opinion, the archaeologists handled the situation very appropriately and maturely. Tuliver and his crew absolutely had a right to be upset with the situation, because they had invested a lot of time and energy into this excavation. For Tuliver, a lot was at stake because this was supposed to be his big breakthrough moment, and that was all taken away from him. Instead of leaving a hero, he felt foolish. In my opinion, the whole situation was manipulative and unfair to Tuliver and the crew. Ollie used Tuliver as a source of credibility so he could get his fake story published in a magazine to earn him money and notoriety for his new business (Praetzellis 145). I thought that the archaeologists handled the situation well because there was no violence or aggression, even though they were extremely upset by the circumstances. Additionally, from reading the epilogue, things seemed to work out well for everybody. The last chapter ends kind of vaguely, which is why I believe the situation was handled properly; there was not much left for the archaeologists to do at this point except for to return home.
...(download the rest of the essay above)