Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T02:46:35.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Radical archaeology and middle-range methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Dean J. Saitta
Dean J. Saitta*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Denver, Denver CO 80208, USA
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Methodologies for learning about the past are currently at issue within archaeology. This paper considers learning from the standpoint of a ‘radical’ archaeology. One strand of a radical archaeology's approach to learning–a Marxist strand–is discussed, and its main methodological challenge identified. This challenge is the development of middle-range frameworks for recognizing what Binford and others term ‘ambiguity’ – unexpected variation in the archaeological record from which fresh insights about the past can be produced. Concepts and ideas for constructing appropriate middle-ranges for a radical archaeology are discussed.

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 66 , Issue 253 , December 1992, pp. 886 - 897
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Althusser, L. 1970. For Marx (Trs. B.Brewster.) New-York (NY): Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Althusser, L. & BALIBAR, E. 1970. Reading Capital. (Trs. B.Brewster.) New-York (NY): Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
Bettinger, R. 1991. Hunter-gatherers: archaeological and evolutionary theory. New-York (NY): Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1982. Objectivity - explanation - archaeology 1981, in Renfrew, C., Rowlands, M. & Segraves, B. (ed.), Theory and explanation in archaeology: 125–38. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1986. In pursuit of the future, in Meitzer, Fowler & Sabloff (ed.): 459–79.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1987a. Data, relativism, and archaeological science, Man 22: 391–404.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1987b. Researching ambiguity: frames of reference and site structure, in Kent, S. (ed.), Method and theory for activity area research: 449–512. New York (NY): Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1989. Debating archaeology. Orlando (FL): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bloch, M. 1983. Marxism and anthropology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Braun, D. 1990. Selection and evolution in nonhier-archical organization, in Upham, S. (ed.), The evolution of political systems: 62–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Conkey, M. & GERO, J. 1991. Tensions, pluralities, and engendering archaeology: an introduction to women and prehistory, in Gero, & Conkey, (1991): 3–30.Google Scholar
Cook, S. 1997. Beyond the Formen: towards a revised Marxist theory of pre-capitalist formations and the transition to capitalism, Journal of Peasant Studies 4: 360–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donham, D. 1990. History, power, ideology: central issues in Marxism and anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. 1989. Aspects of the application of evolutionary theory in archaeology, in Lamberg-Karlovsky, (ed.) 35–49.Google Scholar
Earle, T. & PREUCEL, R. 1987. Processual archaeology and the radical critique, Current Anthropology 28: 501–38.Google Scholar
Engelstad, E. 1991. Images of power and contradiction: feminist theory and post-processual archaeology, Antiquity 65: 502–14.Google Scholar
Fritz, J. 1987. Chaco Canyon and Vijayanagara: proposing spatial meaning in two cultures, in Ingersoll, & Bronitsky, (1987): 313–49.Google Scholar
Gero, J. & CONKEY, M. (ed.). 1991. Engendering archaeology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gilman, A. 1981. The development of social stratification in Bronze Age Europe, Current Anthropology 22: 1–23.Google Scholar
Gilman, A. 1989. Marxism in American archaeology, in Lamberg-Karlovsky, (ed.): 63–73.Google Scholar
Handsman, R. 1991. Whose art was found at Lepenski Vir? Gender relations and power in archaeology, in Gero, & Conkey, (1991): 329–65.Google Scholar
Harris, M. 1959. The economy has no surplus?, American Anthropologist 61: 189–99.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. 1973. Social justice and the city. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1982a. Symbols in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. (ed.). 1982b. Symbolic and structural archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1984. Burials, houses, women and men in the European Neolithic, in Miller, & Tilley, (1984a): 51–68.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. (ed.) 1989. The meaning of things. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1991a. Reading the past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1991b. Interpretive archaeology and its role, American Antiquity 56: 7–18.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1991c. Postprocessual archaeology and the current debate, in Preucel (1991): 30–41.Google Scholar
Ingersoll, D. & BRONITSKY, G. (ed.). 1987. Mirror and metaphor. Lanham (MD): University Press of America.Google Scholar
Ingersoll, D. & NICKELL, J. 1987. The most important monument: The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, in Ingersoll, & Bronitsky, (1987): 199–225.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. 1989. Dynamics of Southwestern prehistory: far outside, looking in, in Cordell, L. & Gumerman, G. (ed.), Dynamics of southwest prehistory: 371–89. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Kent, S. 1987. Parts as wholes - a critique of theory in archaeology, in Kent, S. (ed.), Method and theory for activity area research: 513–46. New York (NY): Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kohl, P. 1985. Symbolic cognitive archaeology: a new loss of innocence, Dialectical Anthropology 9: 105–17.Google Scholar
Kosso, P. 1991. Method in archaeology: middle-range theory as hermeneutics, American Antiquity 56: 621–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, K. 1988. The black and the red: Shanks and Tilley’s programme for a radical archaeology, Antiquity 62: 473–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. (ed.). 1989. Archaeological thought in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leone, M. 1986. Symbolic, structural, and critical archaeology, in Meltzer, Fowler, & Sabloff, (ed.): 415–38.Google Scholar
Leone, M. 1988. The relationship between archaeological data and the documentary record: 18th century gardens in Annapolis, Maryland, Historical Archaeology 22: 29–35.Google Scholar
Leone, M. 1991. Materialist theory and the formation of questions in archaeology, in Preucel (1986): 235–41.Google Scholar
Leone, M. & POTTER, P. (ed.). 1989a. The recovery of meaning. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Leone, M. & POTTER, P. (ed.). 1989b. Introduction: issues in historical archaeology, in Leone, & Potter, (1989a): 1–22.Google Scholar
Marquardt, W. 1992. Dialectical archaeology, Archaeological method and theory 4: 104–40.Google Scholar
Mcguire, R. & PAYNTER, R. (ed.). 1991. The archaeology of inequality. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meltzer, D. FOWLER, D. & SABLOFF, J. (ed.). 1986. American archaeology past and future. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Miller, D. & TILLEY, C. (ed.). 1984a. Ideology and power in prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, D. & TILLEY, C. (ed.). 1984b. Ideology, power, and long-term social change, in Miller, & Tilley, (1984a): 147–52.Google Scholar
Mithen, S. 1989 Evolutionary theory and postprocessual archaeology, Antiquity 63: 483–94.Google Scholar
Moore, J. & KEENE, A. 1983. Archaeology and the law of the hammer, in Moore, J. & Keene, A. (ed.), Archaeological hammers and theories: 3–13. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
O’Brien, M. HOLLAND, T. 1990. Variation, selection, and the archaeological record, Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 31–79.Google Scholar
Patterson, T. 1989. History and the postprocessual archaeologies, Man 24: 555–66.Google Scholar
Patterson, T. 1990. Some theoretical tensions within and between the processual and postprocessual archaeologies, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 189–200.Google Scholar
Paynter, R. 1989. Steps to an archaeology of capitalism: material change and class analysis, in Leone, & Potter, (1989a): 407–33.Google Scholar
Paynter, R. & MCGUIRE, R. 1991. The archaeology of inequality: material culture, domination, and resistance, in McGuire, & Paynter, (1991): 1–27.Google Scholar
Pinsky, V. & WYLIE, A. (ed.). 1989. Critical traditions in contemporary archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Preucel, R. (ed.). 1991. Processual and postprocessual archaeologies: multiple ways of knowing the past. Carbondale (IL): Center for Archaeological Investigations.Google Scholar
Price, B. 1984. Competition, productive intensification, and ranked society: speculations from evolutionary theory, in Ferguson, R. (ed.), Warfare, culture, and environment: 209–40. Orlando (FL): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rathje, W. 1978. Melanesian and Australian exchange systems: a view from Mesoamerica, Mankind 11: 165–74.Google Scholar
Resnick, S. & WOLFF, R. 1982. Classes in marxian theory, Review of Radical Political Economics 13: 1–18.Google Scholar
Resnick, S. & WOLFF, R. 1986. What are class analyses?, Research in Political Economy 9: 1–32.Google Scholar
Resnick, S. & WOLFF, R. 1987. Knowledge and class. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Roseberry, W. 1989. Anthropologies and histories. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press. Google Scholar
Rubinstein, D. 1987. The social fabric: Micron- esian textile patterns as an embodiment of social order, in Ingersoll, & Bronitsky, (1987): 63–82.Google Scholar
Sabloff, J. BINFORD, L. & MCANANY, P. 1987. Understanding the archaeological record, Antiquity 61: 203–9.Google Scholar
Saile, D. 1977. ‘Architecture’ in prehispanic Pueblo archaeology: examples from Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, World Archaeology 9: 157–73.Google Scholar
Saitta, D. 1988. Marxism, prehistory, and primitive communism, Rethinking Marxism 1: 145–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saitta, D. 1989. Dialectics, critical inquiry, and archaeology, in Pinsky, & Wylie, (ed.): 38–43.Google Scholar
Saitta, D. 1991. Radical theory and the processual critique, in Preucel (1991): 54–9.Google Scholar
Saitta, D. 1991. In press. Class and community in the prehistoric Southwest, in Leonard, R. & Wills, W. (ed.), Community dynamics in the prehistoric North American Southwest. Albuquerque (NM): University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, D. 1991. Behavioral conventions and archaeology: methods for the analysis of ancient architecture, in Kent, S. (ed.), Domestic architecture and the use of space: 43–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. 1988. The structure of archaeological theory, American Antiquity 53: 461–85. Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & TILLEY, C. 1987a. Social theory and archaeology. Albuquerque (NM): University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & TILLEY, C. 1987b. Reconstructing archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shennan, S. 1991. Tradition, rationality, and cultural transmission, in Preucel (1991): 197–208.Google Scholar
Spriggs, M. (ed.) 1984. Marxist perspectives in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Terray, E. 1975. Classes and class consciousness in the Abron kingdom of Gyaman, in Bloch, M. (ed.), Marxist analyses and social anthropology: 85–125. London: ASA Monographs.Google Scholar
Tilley, C. 1982. Social formation, social structures, and social change, in Hodder (1982b): 26–38.Google Scholar
Tilley, C. 1989. Archaeology as socio-political action in the present, in Pinsky, & Wylie, (ed.): 104–16.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. 1985. Marxism in archaeology: real or spurious?, Reviews in Anthropology 12: 114–23.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. 1989a. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. 1989b. History and contemporary American archaeology: a critical analysis. in Lamberg-Karlovsky, (ed.): 19–34.Google Scholar
Tringham, R. 1991. Households with faces: the challenge of gender in prehistoric architectural remains, in Gero, & Conkey, (1991): 93–131.Google Scholar
Watson, P. 1986. Archaeological interpretation, 1985, in Meltzer, Fowler, & Sabloff, (ed.): 439–57.Google Scholar
Watson, P. 1991. A parochial primer: the new dissonance as seen from the midcontinental United States, in Preucel (1991): 265–74.Google Scholar
Watson, R. 1991. Ozymandias, king of kings: postprocessual radical archaeology as critique, American Antiquity 55: 673–89.Google Scholar
Welbourn, A. 1984. Endo ceramics and power strategies, in Miller, & Tilley, (1984a): 17–24.Google Scholar
Wessman, J. 1981. Anthropology and marxism. Cambridge (MA): Schenkman.Google Scholar
Whitley, D. 1992. Prehistory and post-positivist science: a prolegomenon to cognitive archaeology, Archaeological Method and Theory 4: 57–100.Google Scholar
Wilmsen, E. 1989. Land filled with flies: a political economy of the Kalahari. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. 1988. The domestication of the human species. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, E. 1966. Peasants. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Wolf, E. 1982. Europe and the people without history. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1982. Epistemological issues raised by a structuralist archaeology, in Hodder (1982b): 39–46.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1985. The reaction against analogy, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8: 63–111.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1989. Matters of fact and matters of interest, in Shennan, S. (ed.), Archaeological approaches to cultural identity: 94–109. London: : Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1991. Gender theory and the archaeological record: why is there no archaeology of gender?, in Gero, & Conkey, (1991): 31–54.Google Scholar