1i

I!
I
I
~----------~----------
438 American Archaeologv Past and Future
Patty Jo Watson Washington University; St. Louis 439

per read at the third Theoretical Archaeology Group Conference, Read-

ing, U.K. Archaeological Interpretation, 1985
Tilley, Christopher
J982 Social Formation, Social Structures and Social Change. In Symbolic and
Structural Archaeology, edited by Ian Hodder, pages 26-38, Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge.
1984 Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Middle Neolithic of
Southern Sweden, In Ideology, Power and Prehistory, edited by Daniel
Miller and Christopher Tilley, pages II 1-'46, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Trigger, Bruce
19843 Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist. Man
19(3l:335-37°'
1984b Archaeology at the Crossroads: What's New? Annual Review of An-
thropologY13:275-300,
Wallerstein, I.
1976 A World-System Perspective on the Social Sciences. British Journal of IntrOduction
Sociology 27:343-352.
Wobst, H. Martin, and Arthur S. Keene
To say something an d en Iig' h tenmg
truthful ' a b ou t current archaeological
1 b
1983 Archaeological Explanation as Political Economy, In The Socio-politics 'mterpretation I' ' nt Neverthe ess, two 0 -
is a very chal engmg assignme . ac-
of Archaeology, edited by Joan M. Gero, David M. Lacy, Michael L.
presenr themse t ves: ()I to p
ut together a summary
Blakey. University of Massachusetts, Department of Anthropology, Re- vious alternatives indi what cat-
search Report 23:79-88. Amherst,
COUnt, or fact-sheer-s-topica
'II y orgarnze . d , perhaps-m
.
IcatlOg
d cred at present
Wylie, Alison egories of laboratory and field research ale beI~g cfionnUtcurrent trends
1981 Epistemological Issues Raised by a Structuralist Archaeology, In Sym- , ) 0 define Sign' ca _
and wah what results; or (2 to try t Th I rrer alternative IS
bolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by Ian Hodder, pages 39-46. , . f the future e a
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. together with their imp Iicanons or , h I have chosen to follow,
1985 The Reaction against Analogy, In Advances in Archaeological Method riskier but more interesting, and that IS the pat , _ line vary from one
and Theory, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, 8:63-II I. Academic Press, " . goals III a d ISCIp , '
New York. At anyone nrne, mrerpreuve . nrucon to insriruncn
, " , ' th r and from ins 1 In
In press Putting Shakertown Back Together: Critical Theory in Archaeology. individual practitioner to ana e h i rirutes for example). -
, , ' nd researc lOSI, h 1_
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. (among uruversmes, museums, a. h di ciplinary level as sc 0
h h time at t e IS d
terpretive goals also vary t roug 'decline, and fa e away
. t or dommant, J n
arly schools rise, become prorrunen hi er I define what mea
, ' th chools- In t ISpap to be
Or are assimilated into a er s ib d discuss what seem
"
by archaeological InterpretatI, 'on desw d e an th
d then relate ese past to
. ti e mo es, an I .t have
the currently dominant mterpre IV -r; 0 other alchaeo ogrs s

ible
trends and possible uture ev,f d dopments. (R bert Dunnell 19 4, an d Bruce
rw 8

recently publishe d re Ievan

t overvrewe 'h
0
t I make comparat!
ive reference
f
Trigger 1984) so a seems
- appropnate tad
. e1atively etai e
'J d account 0-
, I Dunnell's IS a r ., . a more gen-
to them in several paces, ( 98)) whereas Tngger s IS decades
"
cused primarily on a sin
. gle year 'o·on I'
and of the rwo
to three

era] assessment 0 f t h e p resent srrua

antecedent to it.
---------------,---------------~111!~
440 American Archaeology Past and Future
Watson I Archaeological Interpretation, 1985 441

Archaeological Interpretation latest knowledge is;

I can calibrate chronologies, with all
In this paper I take interpretation to mean what the archaeologist does the latest jargon,
to or with archaeological data to make sense of them, both particularist- Using isotopes of oxygen, uranium,
ically (explaining a specific piece of a specific site) and generally (explain- or argon; ...
I can quantify regression lines, in
ing the past). That part of an archaeological site report labelled "inter-
terms of their obliquity,
pretation" is the crowning achievement of the project. It is the final And publish them in [Science] when
chapter in which everything is tied together into one coherent-although rejected by [American AntIqUIty],
always partly or largely conjectural-whole. Of course one's interpretive If you're into symbiosis at [Cahokia]
orientation is also present in everything one does as an archaeologist. or at [Chaco], I'm
The colleague to consult before you
The word conveys "what it all means" not just at the formal wrap-up
promulgate your paradigm.
level, but also at every other level of archaeological endeavor: from the I've hired a taphonomer and fired
initial conception of the research question through the design of field my typologist:
work and analysis to the presentation of specific results and of their theo- I am the very model of a modern
retical and methodological significance. [Arch aeologisr 1,
One of the most wholesome emphases of new archaeology was on . . d ides read response to the urg-
The 19605 phase of enthusiastic an w P e faithfully re-
making explicit one's problem, the means chosen to solve it, and the . B' ford ISeven mar .
degree of success in reaching a solution. Yet, as noted by David Clarke ings of revolutionaries led by Lewis m l ti n in Archeologywnt-
\ (1973), this is also a very threatening procedure, and indeed it induced a fleeted in our book (Watson er aI. 197 I) Expana. 10f called a pOSitiVISt .. '

lifies what JS0 ten L

\ variety of skeptical crises among archaeologists. These emerged during ten in 1969-197°. The book exernp [ . . t) an approach rnat
. '1 h prehistoric pas , . L
the later 1970S and into the 1980S. approach to the past (primari y t e . d by others In tne en-
and reJecte I
was modified in various ways b y some sessment: Watsonet a _
The more immediate result, however, in the 1960S and early 1970s, n recent reas
Suing decade and a half (see our ow
was a heady euphoria about the information potential of the archaeolog-
8 ) . h 70Sthat have
ical record. For a while it seemed that with sufficient ingenuity, an em- 19 4 . d eaction m t e r9 Tri
phasis on d¢uGti:v.e....infea;.nce,and use of new-fangled equipment and It is these varieties of response an .B rh Dunnell (1984) and ng-
.
produced the mterprenve . rren dsofI985- a . terpret/vegrran
. ds in some
techniques (computers, magnetometers, trace-element analyses, flotation these current In markable
devices, pollen spectra) wielded by inrerdisciplinary teams (geoarchaeol- ger (1984) enumerate an d treat f that seemmost re h
k the tWO acts h onslaug t
ogisrs, zooarc'haeologists, archaeobotanists), we could say something in- detail, but neither remar s upon L ew archaeology,t e f" r-
. dafter me n a pas
teresting, significant, and true about any part of the archaeological rec- to me' (I) Before, during, an d the siren songs h I
• L logy an .' rc aeo o-
af CRM and contract arcnaeo '.. f Amencamst a
Old to which we turned our attention. That situation is captured, with h vast malonty 0 .' li e have gone
only very slight exaggeration, by Derek Roe's (1984) description of the ptocessualist" approaches, reI . stream of the dlSCIPIn , f cultural
" . h b h viora main "e form 0
Very Model of a Modern [Archaeologist], I have taken some liberties gists representing tee a IIth real past, VJasam f Amer;can-
with Roe's rendering-itself, of course, an adaptation of the original Gil- right on pursuing what I shall ca h fierstrime in the history a ( ) who do
B t for teL 10gIStsa
bert and Sullivan libretto-as indicated by brackets: materialist strategy. (2 ) U, f practicing arc/laeo " somewhat
" now a ew " " there IS a
tst archaeology, there are ible In addition, . with or has
I .s accesS' . cern [S
I am the very model of a modern not believe the rea past' . whose primary con hi cond (though
[Archaeologist]: h ologlstS Th s t is se I
larger number 0f arc ae h the real past. u.' . ludes severa
A geoethnoarchaeoeconomobiologist. · thert an I gIstS InC
become (b) somet h mg 0 t'cing archaeo a hose primary
I've seventeen research degrees, ng prac' f' those w . I
from fifteen different colleges, minority) category amO d" . uish at least our. () some materia
. h J n !Stmg I past: a
Mostly in America, where all the Subgroups, of wh[c ca other than the rea
concern is with somethIng
 442 American Archaeology Past and Future Watson I Archaeological Interpretation, 1985 443

culture analysts, and (b) some critical theorists; and among those who other bioturbatory .
mechamsms to a II'uviar,I co lIuviaI, and eolian deposi-
do not believe the real past is accessible: (c) all very narrow empiricists, tion; erosion; and remodeling. , ind d they
and (d) some practitioners of actualistic studies. Although the methods and techniques used are vaned- m ee , 'ted
Hence, there are grounds for markedly divergent opinions in 1985 . . . ners are neverth e less, un I
are often seen as conflicting-theu practmo , ibl if at
about whether the discipline is on the verge of serious factionalization, I b lieved to be accessi e, I n
by a common interest in the rea past, ed' f ce from the
or whether it is on its way to synthesis and rebirth. f 'I ' htforwar m eren
directly then indirectly, throug h air y stralg, I d CRM and contract
I discuss the archaeological majority first, and then turn to a consid- archaeological record. This characterization inc u es all cultural his-
eration of the various minority positions including that of the extreme archaeologists, as well as t h ose war kimg on large or sm
archaeological skeptics. Because my concern in this paper is with the torical questions. ', re those archaeolo-
minority positions and their possible significance, I give rather short ' I mamstream a
Other members of the b eh aviora d b bout theory and
shrift to the archaeological majority, Fortunately, the excellent yearly . rns are e ates a d
gists among whose pnmary conce , ' ' s that characterize
summaries by Dunnell in the American Journal of Archaeology (Dunnell ,
method in a continuation a some a
ion of f the actlVlUe
Ex pies include most f °
1984 being the seventh in the series), as well as Trigger's recent account early days in the new arc h aeo ogy
i movement, am
II' d Hodder's; Kel ey an
I d
(1984), and the yearly appearance of review articles in Advances in Ar- ,
Binford's ir-nrions and
publications an many of Dunne s8an. Renfrew 1982; SaIrnon
chaeological Method and Theory (Michael Schiffer, editor) make access , 8 b: Marquardt 19 5, 8 b This
Hanen in press; Leone 19 I" 8 . Wylie 1985", 19 5 :
to the current literature relatively easy. 1982.' Schiffer 198r; Watson et al, 19 4, , t'velychatactenzesas
, (I 82) pelora , ib
group includes those whom Flannery 9 I y (1 do not subsen e
doers of archaeo og
critics and observers rather t h an ,
The Archaeological Majority to Flannery's categorically negative VIew), , ' aJ information on re-
d' um of empltlC 'I rn-
In an attempt to get a mo IC iahr illuminate my IOpIC, exa
The archaeological majority comprises those who use the archaeological search or professiona , I' mteres ts that rrug esented at telh 974 , 1982,
ts of papers pr , gs are de-
record to pursue time-space systematics (more or less the same as Tay- ined the Programs an d Ab st rae . at these meeun I
lor's "chronicle"; Taylor 1948), culture history ("historiography" in Tay- 1983, and 1984 SAA meetings. The secshsa'~::terizing the archraedologirnca
lor's terms, "reconstructing prehistoric lifeways" in Binford's terms; Bin- "
voted to the topics Just re erre
'
f dtoas
'ubgroups
(discussed below ar nJ
here
°
)b ey rscern-
0 Y rw
ford 1962), and/or culture process (roughly corresponding to Taylor's majority with the mmonty s h nd there, t ere w . m
"archaeology as cultural anthropology," and to other authors' "archae- ' I ers ere a 8 sympos,"
ible. Other than a few, one pap, 'I'ty category: one 19 2 he 108)
ology as social science"; Watson et al. 1971:159-163). Topics of con- . igh Ii ' a the mmO h logy at t ,
sessions that rnr t t mt symboliC arc sec , b roups-
suming concern to this majority group include ecological-environmental h nd one on ' otItY SU g
on critical approac es, a "licance of these mm d ho peoples
approaches (Butzer 1982); enthnoarchaeological studies (Binford 1978; ,
meetmgs. Wh at t h en 's I
the SIgn' f ecenr meeting ' s-an w
Gould 1980; Hayden and Cannon 1984; Kent 1984); interest in relined . h rogIamS 0 r
virtually invisible m t e p
dating techniques and materials analysis (Browman 1981; Farquhar and them?
Fletcher 1984); investigation of site formation processes (Binford 1981;
SteIn 1983; Stein and Farrand 1985); use of geographic, biological, and
many other models (Jochim 1983; Johnson 1977; Runnels 1981; Sabloff . "W
Thl!! Archaeological MinOr!
1981); and research on paleo-belief systems (Hall 1977).
, The archaeological majority thus includes purveyors of optimal for- Antecedents , includes work srimu-
agIng, theory, central place theory, information theory, spatial analysis,
rent majority groupmgberanr claimsof 1960s
and SIte catchment analysis, as well as seekers after prehistoric ideologi- As already nored, the CU[rheI970S when rhe e;:ford (1983C) refers to
calor cognitive systems. Prominently present are those tracking site for- lated by skeptical cnses 0 , home to rOOSf.
mation processes of all descriptions from the effects of earthworms and b an comIng
new archaeology eg
 444 American Archaeology Past and Future Watson I Archaeological Interpretation, 1985 445

this I970S period as a generation gap; I recently called it a secondary here is Robert Dunnell whose d ogge d an d d0 grnatic empiricism is8laid
loss of innocence (Warson 1982). I was harking back to David Clarke's 80, 19 4a,
out in a number of pu bliicanons, (0unne II 1971 , 1978, 19hi"
1973 discussion of the new archaeology which he viewed as representing I984b). He is near or at the " arn if act p hvsics"
ysics
horn of the arcf aeoh agist
dis-s
the loss of innocence characteristic of traditional archaeology with its dilemma described by DeBoer an d Lat h rap I 97, I 9'103' , see urr er IS
almost wholly intuitive goals. Clarke called for disciplinary self- cuss ion of this dilemma in Wylie in prep.):
consciousness among archaeologists, but predicted that this might be
, ractirioner of an over-
painful, or at least that confusion would be engendered by it (Clarkel Either [the archa~ologls.t] b~comh~ch Past cultural behavior is
1973:8; see also Wylie 1982; Pinsky and Wylie in prep.), The prediction extended umformltanarnsm In w nt e~ltural behavior, or he [or
came true. Although much of the new archaeology was adopted and in- "read" from our knowledge of prese derstanding behav-
I she] must eschew hiIS [or h]~r akimmitment to un
d of "artifact in whi h
physics" In w IC
deed is now central to the field, revisionist moves of various sorts soon
emerged, chief among them a rapidly burgeoning concern with site for-
ior altogether and engage In a bn , al by.products are measured
the form and distribution of be aVlofr 'I' quandary of choosing
mation processes approached via ethnoarchaeology, geoarchaeology, and in a behavioral vacuum. ThiIS IS ' thde ami f iar lty method or one whiICh
experimental archaeology. Many archaeologists are happily and produc- between a significant pursuit bas,e,
is methodologically sound but rnvra In pu
I~ au rpose [DeBoerand Lath-
tively employed in these and related areas, but others have experienced
still deeper skeptical crises, which have led some of them to (or toward) rap 1979:103].
the minority positions now to be discussed. logy from its close
.h parate arch aeo 'I d
Dunnell apparently WIS es to se b that relationship has e
relationship with culrura Iant h rop ology ecause d faIlacious approac h to
, Iy flawe or II
to what he regards as a very senous tionist school (Dunne
Classification of the Archaeological Minority , the reconstruc in whi h the
archaeological interpretatu'I'! , the common one In w IC ,
1980:77-83, 87-88). This approach IS ted as most archaeolOgists
As noted, I am aware of four minority subgroups: (a) some material d or reconstruc
past is inferentially constructe , , inf mation and ethnographic
culture analysts (Leone 1973:136-150, '98Ia, I981b; Rathje 1978:50, , f h raphic In or '1 rd on
speak of it, on the baSIS0 et ~og f the archaeologlea reco
1981), (b) some critical theorists (Leone 1973:128-136, 198Ia, 198Ib; .'
analogy. Dunnell insists on a dllect , use a He believes t hat evolutJOnary , '
Tilley in prep.; Conkey and Spector 1984; Cere 1985; Hall 1984; Ken- hi indIrect use. I rion as It IS
its own terms rather th an t IS I lution but to eva u d
nedy 1979), (c) all very narrow empiricists (Dunnell 1978a, 1980), (d) cultura evo , J 'cal recor '
theory (not with reference to I' d to the archaeo ogl
some practitioners of actualistic studies (Binford 1981:21-30; Binford h Id be app Ie
and Sabloff 1982; Hodder I982b:212). understood in biology) s ou , '6 whether evolu-
hat urport to be SClentlnd measurable in
Subcategories (a) and (b) are rather readily comprehensible, and ex- The units in any theory t Prl'callyidennfiableda 'n the "behav-
amples are easily available. Some of these archaeologists are not con- t be empi b 'c uaw If'
tionary or not, m~s rd This is the aSI, school",. I ."t
cerned with the past at all, but rather with the way material culture, the phenomenological recof the reconsrrucnoOlst 't must be rewrlt-
viewed at least in part as archaeologists view it, can instruct us about ioral correlates" nOll?n 0be used in archa~oJOgy'd,earchaeological
[evolutionary theory] IS~Oirical representanonw'lll have to be can:
our own society (Leone '973; Rathje 1978, 1981). Others are concerned
with the real past, but believe for very good and sufficient reasons that a record. Archaeol?19ca
1
ten in terms that ha~e e~olutiOnary thfeorylutiOnarytheory as e~
nse uences a eva hic data for artl-
focus on critical approaches is essential because the real past is inacces- structed by dedUCIng~:~~pplfcable, to et~~~~r:~, some as!,eclSwill
sible unless we can analyze adequately, and then neutralize or circum- ployed in bIOlogy a~ d distribunons. b'ect to seleerlOn, ]
vent, the social and political ideologies that bias and shape our under- facts their frequenCIeS~nthose not directly ;;;JnnellI980:87-89 .
standing of it (Conkey and Spector 1984; Cero 1985; Hall 1984; the a~chaeological recortrl~ctlY cultural terms I
'OnIn s I ' reC-
Kennedy 1979). require exp Ianall f the archaeo o19ca
f orne aspects a h cannot be en·
The third subgroup (very narrow empiricists) is the most interesting Thus, although he allow~e~:t~er than function) t at
for the present analysis, and also the most disquieting, A central figure esent sty
ord (those that repr
�~---------------~-----------------T
446 American Archaeology Past and Future Watson / Archaeological Interpretation, 1985 447

compassed by a scientific evolutionary approach, his concern is with the r981'2r-30- Binford and Sabloff r982; and see Wylie in prep.), Binford
evolutionarily significant portion of the record that can, he believes, be ., - . a b out access to the real past. He says:
seems to take a skeptical posmon
so encompassed (Dunnell r978a). Description and understanding of that
portion will not COmevia reconstruction of the past, but via analysis of " f II inferential arguments,
There is an important charactensoc "d a anner from premises to
"the hard phenomena of the archaeological record" themselves (Dunnell
Simply that we can never reason 10 a va I m h which we start. This
1978b: 19 5). a conclusion that contradicts the prermses Wit, _
There are a number of difficulties with Dunnell's argument (Watson , - I' - for archaeologIsts,
fact has Important Imp icanons , fences relative to ob-
et al. 1984:251-256). Perhaps the greatest for me is understanding how I. All our statements about the past ar~ 10 ~rgical record.
one can say anything about the archaeological record without covertly if servations made on the contemporalry arc aeotoonsof the past is di-
'f na construe I
2. The accuracy 0 f our 10 eren
,
not overtly employing a reconstructionist approach to some nontrivial f he assumptions or premises
rectly dependent on the accuracyo r
degree. , f inf ntial arguments. h
serving as the baSIS 0 our 10 ere is th nnor use either r e
What, exactly, are the hard phenomena of the archaeological record, I ' t draw IS t at we ca .
"the empirical data themselves" (Dunnell 198o:78)? How can they even
The cone USlOn we mus.
archaeological record or the mffrred r ast to test our premises or
ble means for knowing the
assumptions ... how do we deve op re ia research which zonsrsts
be comprehended in the absence of constructionist or reconstructionist
inference based on knowledge of relevant contemporary phenomena? Past). .. . we must . engageisned 10 mIddle-range
contro
I for the ~elationship be-
I
of acrualistic studies designe to b t which one seeks know -
Secondarily, how can the differential distribution (diachronic and tween dynamic properties of the past a c~r;.,monto the past and the
synchronic) of stylistic vs, functional artifacts and attributes be detected edge and the static material propertH; -in short, the characteristics
and documented in the absence of reconstructionist reasoning? That is, Present , Whitehead's .
"eternal objects
-' 'sumptlons m
ay be made, those things
hi pro-
how can One distinguish stylistic traits from functional ones without re- about which umformltanan as st These common I mgs ,
lying on reconstructionist inference? which the present shares WIth
vide the basis for a companson 0 t
tbi '::e ~vents from different times rn
h
It is, however, simply Dunnell's insistence on a totally empirical ap- ' fence rat
the past. d of the past on in er di er
proach to the archaeological record that causes me to place him in the The dependence of our knowle gerelationship between para gi
camp of extreme skepticism about access to the real past. than direct observation renders thi and theory (the conceptfalbt~~
Dunnell's position is one node of an extreme skeptical syndrome, (the conceptual 1001 of descnptl°dn the "independence" a a s d:
. .t also ren ers d manly stan
but there are at least two other nodes, defined by highly influential of explanation) vague,. I uently suspect an com of "con-
people: Lewis Binford and Ian Hodder. These two archaeologists are vations from explanatlOh~ fr~~rebY committing th~ fall:~ford and
ing in a built to relatIOns Ip, _ f d 98r'29' see a so J
prominent exemplars of those who have temporarily undertaken full- " [Bm or I . ,
firming the consequent
time research in actualistic contexts to enable, eventually, more adequate Sabloff I982:r49]·
and accurate understanding of archaeological site formation and of the ,' One is pointed our by
nature and functioning of past societies. This is the endeavor Binford and bl ms with this pOSItIon. She notes that
There are two pro e I d cited (Wylie in prep.l- dependent
others call "middle range theory." Middle range theory is widely re- . I' - h paper a rea Y d" nd theory
Alison Wy ie on t e _ "aradigm-boun a b' results or
garded as the best-perhaps the only-means of achieving extensive, -, d- e Just as p d sO t elf
actnalIsnc stu les ar b eological recor , - s on tbe
detailed, and accurate information about the real past. Binford's brilliant - of tbe arc a l observatIOn
as are interpretations 'nferences lfom
ethnoarchaeological forays into Nunamiut lifeways are internationally I erable as are 1
conclusions are as vu n , ~ well-
known, admired, and emulated. As Dunnell (r984:50r) observes, Bin- d 0 obtam ve.,
archaeological recor . 'tbat even were we t I reSin presently
ford's work program is most comprehensively and comprehensibly dis- The second problem IS about bebavioral correia middle-level
played in his book /n Pursuit of the Past (Binford I983b), which is a d gulanoes II "abso ute
confirmed laws an r~bat Trigger (r984) ca sin as! societieswithout
clear, compelling account of how the basic position he represented
observed SOCleoes- t be used to expla Pd I bels as afhlnJlUg
twenty years ago has matured and evolved through many years of . " these canno Binfor a
generalizanons - great as tbe one
thought and effOrl. Yet in some of his recent publications (Binford making an inferential leap as
-------------~------------~H
448 American Archaeology Past and Future Watson / Archaeological Interpretation, 1985 449

the consequent and hence as unacceptable procedure. How can one de- In our attempts to become aware of the preconceptions th~t .he
cide, with the certainty he apparently requires, which things "the present might impose on the past, we must "live" archaeology, not in t e
sense of Gould's ... "living archaeology," but m the mlodr~radhlcahl
shares with the past" and which things are not so shared? We must al- . . know Ied ge an d experience
. from the wor if m w IC
sense of gauung I
ways affirm the consequent if we are to do any meaningful interpretation . .'
we hve our dally hves. Th ere IS a anger, though , that I weI on. y
. d
at all, but we do it explicitly and as a calculated way, not of achieving · d to t hi'ere atrvi'ty of
look at ourselves we may be b IIII b our own ogre.I
. db'
dead certainty-even in the heyday of Explanation in Archaeology we d .h h Its 0 tame y socia
Contrasts with other cultures an wit t e resu I I bi s The
frown ell tura 13.
denied that was possible (Watson et al. 1971:4, 22-23)-but rather of anthropologists encourage awareness 0 au ib t to this critical
reducing uncertainty. proper purpose of archaeology may be to contn u e
self-awareness [Hodder 1982b:2I2].
Hence, I think that Binford would be well advised not to tread this
extreme skeptical ground but rather to continue refining approaches to h dequac y or validity
Hodder does not attempt to assess tea . I th
of social
I_
archaeological inference as he has been doing in such papers as "The k 'h w he rhinks SOCIaan ropo
anthropological data, so I do. not now. 0 ic and the preconceptions
Archaeology of Place" (Binford 1982) and "Historical Archaeology" ogisrs have escaped the relativity of rheir 10 gI h bserve in living
(Binford r977), as well as other publications flowing from his Nunamiut .
they may have Impose d upon events or processes t ey 0
research (Binford 1983a, 1983b; see also the analyses by Wylie 1985b, but undeniably alien cultures. ith ard to the past, how-
and in prep.). dd ' k . I stance WI reg
To return to Ho er s S eptica h b k in a discussion of a
Ian Hodder has taken a different path toward skepticism about ac- ever, near the end of the last chapter of t e 00 ects of material cul-
cess to the real past. His skeptical attitude is implicit in Symbols in Ac- . . I I h numerates nme asp .'
SCience of materia cu ture, e e bi it and uncertamty mtc
tion (1982a) and rather clearly revealed in The Present Past (1982b). . II' oduces am igui Y .h
ture each of which potentia Ymtr . d This litany, together WIt
When he began his ethnoarchaeological research in Africa in the late . . f h h eologlcal recor. I b li
the mterpretatIon ate arc a k behavior and sym ousm
1960S, he apparently did so for the same reason that motivated Binford: the subsequent account of contempora~ ~~~hhis stress throughout the
to strengthen archaeological inference, or at any rate to improve certain in Britain (Hodder 1982b:21S-2I6) .an hist rical contexts, leaves the
types of inferences made from the archaeological record. However, un- hook on the deep sigrn iznifi cance a f uruque dIS"berately0
means to d)OW,!. h
like Binford who has-with a few exceptions such as those just dis- · Hodder eu th f a-
archaeological reader (as I b eIieve . I' dismay about e e
cussed-steadfastly pursued that aim, Hodder seems to have lost, or per- f 'on or Just p am
a sense of bewilderment, can USl, nOon
haps deliberately abandoned, his way in the fascinatingly intricate world . I'trpreta
lca . "
sihility of adequate archaeolog me. with (although-at least in
of cognitive, or symbolidstructuralist studies and critical approaches. In In other words, I think Hodder IS toymg ) a fundamental skepn-
the introduction to Symbols in Action (1982a:1) he says: rdly advocating ducnve
these publications-not outwa Id be quite counterpro d
th past that wou 0 he one han ,
The initial aim of the research was to see what material "cultures" cism abour know Ied ge 0f e haeologists. n t
id d among arc "kng us more
(geographical areas with recurring associations of artifacts) repre- were it to become WI esprea I a useful role 10 rna I h
sented and were related to in a living context. The concern was to . . and can p ay "n rhe or er
his analyses are fasClnatmg " interpretatIOns; a I
shed some light on the analysis and interpretation of cultures in pre- hi . ated rn our d ro ru e out
sensitive and more sop IStlC I' they waul seem
hlstonc archaeology .... When do ethnic units identify themselves hand followed to their logical conc USl~~~thabour tbe real past. f ,be
in material culture? What is the spatial patterning that results? What ' h' f substance or d least pa't a
happens at material culture boundaries? hope of saying anyt mg a f b time and Binfor ,a' h chaeology
d much 0 t e, b t w at ar
In sum, Ho d er, I t their innocence a au h e lost ,heir
In The Present Past (1982b:2I2) he states "as much as the past in- . I have as h em ro av
time, seem not on y to do but also t ey se 1 st Because
forms the present, so the present informs the past," and indeed through- is and what archaeologists can d' as a guide to the rea Pha· sim ·
out the book he maintains this critical or skeptical stance toward archae- g lcal recor . figures, t , s arion
faith in the arc h aeo aI . d cha,ismatlc .' I'
ological interpretation so strongly that in one place he concludes that the ductlve, an f h disclp lne.
both are vigorouS, pro h future well being ate I sr who rakes a
proper purpose of archaeology may be to aid attainment of critical self- might seem alarming for t e ect is afforded the ana Y
'ng prosp
awareness by members of Our modern industrialized society. An even more aIarmt
 450 American Archaeology Past and Future
Watson I Archaeological Interpretation, 1985 451

developmental or evolutionary view of these recent events. One can con-

firmly directed at the real past. Even our most penetrating critics admit
ceive of the following sequence of phases or stages:
that when we get down in our trenches or up on our tab stools we gen-
Phase I (Age of Innocence, prc-rysos). The archaeological record is
erally know what we are doing even if we are not always highly articulate
~viewed as a direct reflection of the past, limited in some ways because of
about why we are doing . It'(S a Iman 197 6 ,1 982'49 ., 77'" WylIe '98"d
!,obvious preservarion problems, but otherwise comprising priceless eljcs
'985a, '985b). For purposes of maximizing the archaeological re~o~ ,
--\of the.human.pasr,
however we must strive to be explicitly thoughtful about goals, met a s,
; Phase II (First Burst of the New Archaeology, 1962-1972). It is be-
and techniques, and we must justify Out inferences about the past. .
lieved that with the application of sufficient ingenuity and the use of new y
AIl practicing archaeologists behave in fundamentally the sahmewha ,
techniques and methods, the archaeological record will yield a great , di I between w at t ey
I
I
wealth of information about prehistoric -human social and cultural be-
they work back and forth in a continuous 18 og
'
expect or think or hope IS correct i.e., (i hypotheses
h ' h ches
' t hi'
cones, unI c-
h~r.-
. f ' n of the arc aeo ogtca re
about the correct interpretation a a portio I '12-16
'---- Phase III (Loss of Innocence, Stage I, '972-midllate 1970S). It is d i If (Watson er a 1971. ,
realized that interpreting the archaeological record is rather problematic ord), and the archaeologic. al recor ltSe" h' osr fruitful
'I ating rn this way, t e m
because of interference by natural and cultural site formation processes. '14-12'; Wylie 1985).b Wh ue oper 1 f whar they
h h re most clear y aware a
These must be studied mainly in the present and hence mainly by actu- results are obtained by t ose w a a 1" I hose significant rather
alistic techniques (geoarchaeological, ethnoarchaeological, and replica- are doing and why, because they will eXPlllc'ltY c pOpropriatedata recov-
. . . . er and WI se ect a .
tive [experimental archaeological]) so that the distorting effects can be than trivial questions to answ , b d t e1evantinformation.
neutralized in interpretation. ery methods best calculated to produce a undan,' ~owledge is rornor-
, I I ware that to ays
Phase IV (Loss of Innocence, Stage 2, late 1970s-1980s). It is be- They will also be most c ear y a di f the evidence are con.
, h hei r understan ings a d
lieved that neutralization of distorting influences is an inadequate and row's ignorance; i.e., t at t er . sk the record an new
tinually changing,, irnrmo rrew quesnons to a
necessnanng ne f understandmg ,
the
possibly even an erroneous way to arrive at interpretation of the archae- , Thus the process 0 d
ological record. The only hope for achieving genuine advances in archae- techniques for gettmg answers. , 'nd also thoroughly e-
ological theory (and hence in archaeological interpretation) is by means
is th
archaeological record IS t oroug Y hl h d igns intellIgently app I'red
dynamIC, a
- I d - d researc es , I I
of acrualistic studies. Pendent upon intelligent y evrse k lifies rhis more c ear y
's war exemp 'd
to a piece of that record. N a one f h time both practices an
Phase V (Terminal Skeptical Crisis, possibly late 1980s-1990?). - f d ho most ate, 83 '
Knowledge gained through ethnography is impossible to apply to the than does that of Bin or , w '. B' f d 198P:389-394, 19 b .
preaches the procedure Just esc, d ribed ( in or
d -srand the well- ocurndented
past. Human behavior is too complicated, too intricate, too intangible to
chapters 4,5,8,9). It was his atrempt;~ ~:atedrove him from the ethn~'
be captured and preserved in material remains, and too idiosyncratic and g work explicitly designed ro a d'
variability in Mousterian assemhbla td
particular to be understood even if it were somehow so preserved. More- fi
graphic literature to et h no grap IC_ e He then returne d to r at b and
over, contemporary sociopolitical forces inevitably warp and distort our I . I questIOns. ord anne
perceptions of all alien social processes, present or past. And, finally, the swer specific archaeo oglCa _ d arJypost_Pleistocenerec d fro
' f h PaleolIthiC an e _ work 10 an
archaeological record-far from being static-is so dynamic a play- other portions 0 t e _ h and contInues to bt.in
with the results of actualisnc researc( , d only) possible means to 0
ground for all manner of bio- and geoturbatory factors, that there is no 1 'the best an
hope of retrieving past human behavior from it. between the twO rea IDSIll ding of the real past, achieve
d d un derstan f but we can
QED: Archaeology is impossible. There is no real past, or at any relatively well· foun e will never be per ect, __ I and persis.
he
rate no access to it. Our knowledge of tth paspterfections by dever, en.nca,'record with
I ver e Jln h e%glca f
Iam not unduly upset Or pessimistic about all this, however, at least significant contro a b ations on the arc a b orne degree a
' - of a serv h lhere e s
tent coor d matIon . "mportant t at _ orrarH that
not as an abstract possibility. The first reason for my relative equanimity ·. lly It IS J sk but it 's'more Imp
those made acrua IIsnca . th' even
IS that I know most field archaeologists have very solid inruitions very . . out IS ra ,
skepticism m carrymg
 452 American Archaeology Past and Future Watson / Archaeological Interpretation, 1985 453

the original goal of reliable access to the real past neither be mired in a serve wherever possible, and where not, to extract from the archaeolog-
slough of skeptical despond, nor abandoned altogether for seemingly ical record the maximum amount of information about that real past.
greener actualistic fields. This commitment necessitates greater attention to significantarchaeolog-
The second reason for my relatively tranquil state of mind is that I ical problems and to research designs appropriate to solve them within
know the pull of the archaeological heard and-the real past-to be ex- all forms of field archaeology. , "
tremely powerful, not just to the professionals who read the latest tech- So I conclude with respect ro "Archaeological Interpretation, 1985
nicalliterature and hear the electrifying papers read at meetings, but also that explicit attention to t h eory IS ' more impor ' rant than it has ,everM been
to avoca tiona I archaeologists and the general public who do not. These ,
in the 100 years since forma Iizanon a arc aeo, f h logy in America. Iost
people-amateurs, avocationals, and the informed or just simply the in- critical of all is relentless attention ion toto th
t e conservano' n of the archaeo k h og-
'
terested lay public-are fascinated by all aspects of the real human past. ,
ical record and to the mtegrauon a ion of th
eory with the field wor d t at IS
A substantial number of professional archaeologists are, in fact, re- ' , I ' being destroye so rap-
applied to that record. Archaeologica sires are hi t
formed pothunters or relic collectors, hence have entered the profession to the real pre istonc pas
idly that in the very near future our access 'II have as data
from the ranks of this same interested lay public. And, of course, most " ow Soon we WI
will be even more attenuate d t h an It IS n . , b t a tiny
current funding for prehistoric archaeology in the United States is public cirnens representing u
only excavation reports an d museum spe ible rheory of recov-
money. 'I d The best POSSI
fraction of the archaeo Iogica recor . d t make irretrievable
Therefore, in a certain fundamentally important sense, nearly all of ery and recording IS , essentia' I to assu re that we 0 no
us who call ourselves archaeologists as well as those who support our more of the prehistoric past t h an has as aalrea dy been lost.
work are particularists: We want to know what happened and why, not
only in history, but also in prehistory. Only archaeologists can attain
historical and social scientific understanding of the real, human, prehis- Acknowledgments .
toric past, and they have the strongest possible mandate to do so. I find discussions with Alison Wy-
This paper was heavily influenced by many I ith Mary Kennedy,nei-
that in spite of skeptical skirmishes and many differences in specific
lie over the past three years, an d more recent y WIWithout Mary''e wordwor -
goals, methods, and techniques, "Archaeological Interpretation, 1985" f h crual content. h
ther of whom is to blame or tea , uld certainly not ave
displays the same central tendency as "Archaeological Interpretation, isec h the manuscnpt wo th d
processing expertise, nwever, 'I rateful to her for at an
1935": describing and explaining the real past.
C'
ne
been ready in final form by the deadli a~ gFinally,I am thankful to
I cannot close, however, without interjecting, a final and less opti-
for help in assembling the LlteraturMeI,te 'for astute editorial sugges-
mistic comment about the real world of the present. I believe as strongly . d to DaVId J. e rzer
as ever that it is vitally important to think about what we are doing and RIChard A. Watson an d h f al manuscript,
,
nons "fi cant Iy I'mprove ten
that srgrn
why we are doing it, and to discuss these issues in a variety of different
contexts. But, at least in the continental United States, we do not have
Literature Cited
the luxury of unlimited time for these discussions. At the present rate, by
, ' 'ty 9,,08->19, ,
the year 2.000, if not before, virtually all the prehistoric archaeological Binford, Lewis R. A hropology.American AntJt~olo~caJ!In HiSlOflc.aJ
record here will be gone. In other words, contemporary Americanist ar- 1962 Archaeology a, Of . Is It Historicalor Arc gs Sodety for HIS- Th'
1977 Historical Archaeo Ogr- ortance of Material In,
chaeology is, in a very immediate sense, a gigantic conservation and sal- Archaeology and the mp I publications ':'3-77' Y k
torical Arc h aeo Igy Specta[ ,p New or, New York .
Acadenuc cess, . p
vage operation. This means that we simply cannot afford a major diver- 0,

SIO~ in debates about archaeological theory from our first order of 1978 Nunamiut Ethnaarchae~ ::jern Myths, Acahdem~~og:'fArchaeology
1981 Bones: AnCIent Me~t~lace. Journal of Ant rop
busmess: describing and explaining the human past. Hence, although I 1982 The Archaeology y, k
remam calm about the abstract possibility, for practical and logistical I' 5-3 I. A demic Press, New o.c i Rewrd. Thames
reasons, I do view with alarm contemporary moves toward denial of the '983" Working at Archae;;~fD.'::'ding the Archaeolagrca
I983b In Pursuit of the d ind New YOlk.
real past or of access to it. Rather we must redouble our efforts to con- and Hudson, Lon on a