Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Teorie, Arheologia Clasica Si Noua Arheologie, 1985, Sondars

    Uploaded by

    simina
    6 views8 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views8 pages

    Teorie, Arheologia Clasica Si Noua Arheologie, 1985, Sondars

    Uploaded by

    simina

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 8
    The New Archaeology and the Classical Archaeologist A.M, Snodgrass American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 89, No. 1, Centennial Issue (Jan., 1985), 31-37. Stable URL hitp:/flinks.jstor-org/sicsici=0002-91 14% 28198501%2989%3A 1%3C31%3ATNAATC%3E2, 10%3B2-3 American Journal of Archaeology is currently published by Archacological Instinute of America, Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hup:/www,jstororglabout/terms.hml. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hupsfwww.jstor.org/journals/aia hum. ch copy of any part of'a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, ISTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @ jstor.org. hupulwww jstor.org/ Wed Dee 21 06:52:46 2005 This article was presented as the first in a series of lectures on archaeology sponsored jointly by the Archaeological Institute of America and the 92nd Street YMHA in New York City in April 1984. The New Archaeology and the Classical Archaeologist* A.M. SNODGRASS ‘The topic of this paper is no longer a novel one. Itis now over four years since my colleague at Cambridge, Professor Colin Renfrew, delivered a clarion call in the shape of his lecture at the Centennial celebrations ‘of the Archaeological Institute of America, “The Great Tradition versus the Great Divide."' Since then, we have had Stephen Dyson’s conciliatory paper A Classical Archaeologist’s Response to the New Ar- chacology,” in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research for 1981, not to mention a few oth~ er attempts by American and British archaeologists to address themselves, briefly and usually in passing, to similar questions; while from France has come the one really extended treatment of the problem, ema- nating from within what Renfrew called the “Great Tradition” and taking a searchingly critical look across his “Great Divide": Paul Courbin’s consistent- ly witty and often scathing book of 1982, Qu’est-ce que UArchéologie?® ‘What is the issue that has so agitated all of us? Roughly speaking (and there is no analysis of the problem that would command universal acceptance), itis this. There exists a more-than-century-old tradi- tion of archaeology in the Mediterranean lands and the Near East. Because ofthe historical importance of the civilizations with which it deals, it occupies some place in the intellectual background of every educated ‘man, woman or child. Because of the material bril- liance of these same cultures, it has filled half the mu- seums of the world with impressive objects, Because of the select recruiting ground from which many of its practitioners have come, it has produced a literature which contains its fair share of works, whether exca- Lam most grateful to Paul Halstead for guidance amid un- fanaa erature, 'G. Renfrew, “The Great Tradition versus the Great Divide: Archaeology 38 Anthropology?” AJA 8 (1980) 287-98 "Dyson, “A Classical Archaclogia’s Response to the “Neve Archaeology" BASOR 242 (1981) 7°18. Compare alo J- Wie American Journal of Archavology 89 (1985) Centennial lesue 3 vation reports or syntheses, which have become “clas- sies” Without being by any means universally ac- cepted asa university disipline—a point on which we right refleet—it is in every other way an established subject, occupying the time of a small amy of academ- ies and government employees in every developed country, and enjoying atleast the status of an up-mar- ket hobby among tens of thousands of others. For ‘many laymen, and forthe whole ofthe entertainment industry, it represents what the word “archaeology” actually means: indeed there is one language, Ger~ ‘man, in which it actually isa large part of what the ‘word “Archaologie” means, in cntradistinction to an- other term, "Prabistorie” or *Vorgeschichte," whichis used for the archaeology ofall preliterate and most non-lterate cultures. Archaeology in the Mediterra- rnean world and the Near East is closely linked with, and was indeed for along time merely an integeal part of, the linguistic, literary and historical study of the corresponding parts ofthe globe in antiquity. ‘The New Archaeology, by contrast, is even today less than twenty years old, and is generally describ- able in terms of a polarity with the kind of archaco- logy that Ihave just described. It and its practitioners have litle or nothing to do with linguistic, literary oF historical studies. It deals primarily with past cultures ‘hich are not recognized as having had an important role in history, and itis emphatically not orientated toward the recovery of objects, beautiful or otherwise. Geographically, its origins lie in two areas of re- search, North America and northern Europe; but from this base it has expanded its scope to cover work. in Africa (which is stil *Vorgeschichte"), in Latin ‘man, “Conflicts in Archacology Education and Practice,” JFA 10, (198) 1-9, with reterences to earlier papers: J- Boardman in brieer references, eg, CR 25 1975) 118-20, “The Athenian Pot tery Trade Expdion (1979) 33-39; “Remnant of History, Encounter 404 (Apel 1973) 67-69. SP. Courin, Questce qu UArchiologe? (Pats 1982) 32 AM, SNODGRASS ‘America (thus entering the domain of “Archaologie"), and even in certain periods of the past of lands like Mesopotamia, Greece and Italy, thus atleast margin= ally overlapping with the field of the traditional ar- chacology that I spoke of first. It has a tremendous following among archaeologists under the age of about 35; it has established a definite niche, as an ine tellectual approach, among a somewhat wider range of disciplines, mostly lying within the social sciences; but it has, as yet, made litte impact on the imagina- tion of the educated general public. Its commonest stance in regard to the traditional school of archaeo- logy ranges from reasoned eriticism and remonstrance to contemptuous indifference, The main charges brought against the traditional archaeology are those at which my earlier description perhaps hinted. It is ‘an undisciplined discipline. It is pragmatic, and em- ploys no explicit body of theory. Lulled into compla~ ‘eency by the benevolent interest ofthe educated pub- lic, itis content with the goal of description. It de- seribes everything, analyzes and synthesizes a re- stricted range of aspects, and explains nothing. Itis concerned with the unique and the particular, not with generalities: the classic works in its literature, which I mentioned earlier, betray this position by their ttle: books like Ur ofthe Chaldees, The Palace of Minos, The Tomb of Tutankhamen are unasham- edly books about a single site. They rely on the impor- tance of Ur, Knossos or the Valley of the Kings to determine the importance of what they describe. They use archaeology as a means of adding to what was al- ready known about these sites; they do not use their sites as exemplifications ofthe principles and methods of archaeology, and anyone who used one of them as a handbook to help in the excavation of, say, a pueblo in Arizona would be bitterly disappointed in the out- come. Where such books go beyond pure description and become interpretative, the interpretations that they offer are not testable by any objective criterion: rather, they reflect the unspoken prejudices of their authors—by any European writing in the 1920s, for instance, imperialism and its concomitant features hhad been unconsciously assimilated as a way of life, and this acceptance affected his view of the past too, ‘Thus there has grown up what Colin Renfrew called the “Great Divide.” His own appeal was dic rected to the bridging of this divide by means of some splendid, no doubt cantilevered structure, which was to be built from both ends until it met in the middle, thus letting loose an intense two-way traffic which ‘would enormously enrich both sides of the gap. Ste- phen Dyson’s proposal, on the other hand, seems to be [Ayano for a more modest rope-bridge over the gulf, which ‘would allow some part of the intellectual baggage of the New Archaeology to be humped across into the “Great Tradition”; while the result of Courbin’s me- ticulous feasibility study is that, on balance, the huge costs of building a bridge would not be justified by the ‘meager benefits that it would bring. ‘Most of these writers, and several others whom I ‘have not mentioned, have approached the problem from one side of the divide: they ask themselves the question, “What (if anything) is Classical Archaeo- logy going to do about the New Archaeology?” I wish to begin by raising the converse question: “What isthe New Archaeology going to do about Classical Ar- chaeology?” (and the other components of the “Great Tradition”). Now Classical Archaeology, from within which I speak, surely lies at the very heart of the tra- ditional archaeology that has lately been put under scrutiny. It isthe oldest component of the “Great Tra- dition” in archaeology, and itis the biggest, in terms of the number ofits practitioners and its students, and of its published output. In its own estimation at least, it is also probably the most distinguished component of that tradition, To adopt a more critical vein, ifthe as- semblage of data and the tidy ordering of material are activities that epitomize the sterility of the traditional archaeology, then what branch of it can offer a mass so large and so thoroughly ordered as Classical Ar- chacology? If the aim of mere description, however full, is stigmatized as an unworthy one fora discipline such as archaeology, then what branch of it has ac- cepted that aim with more complacency than Classi- cal Archaeology? If a concentration on the particular at the expense of the universal was one of the flaws at the heart of traditional archaeological thinking, then what could be more particularized than Classical Ar- chaeology, in which half a dozen books may be de- voted to a single building, and even two or three to a single statue, and in which everything is conceived in terms of its impact on a single culture? All ofthis suggests that a re-orientation ofthe disci- pline of archaeology might be expected to begin with Classical Archaeology and its methods, asa paradigm of the approach that had been practiced hitherto, and that must now be either abandoned as sterile, or de- flected into a more productive channel. But nothing of the kind has happened. The pioneers of the New Ar~ chaeology have in the main ignored Classical Ar- chaeology, whether for praise or for blame, almost as if't did not exist. The “traditional archaeology” which they have held up for scrutiny and ultimate dismissal, where it has been clearly specified, has appeared to be sropean archaeology in the generation alter Gordon Childe, oF of Mesoamerican archaco- logy (one thinks of that rotously funny and not en- tirely fictitious “straw man” created by Kent V. Flan- nery, the “Real Mesoamerican Archaeologist™) of the same period. Thus most Classical Archaeologists have been left with the feeling that they are outside the tar~ get area of the new criticisms, and that the conflict provoked by these hardy concerned them. Let me give 2 statistic. One other major event in the four years since Colin Renfrew's address has been the appear- ance of a volume of collected pieces by Lewis H. Bin- ford, under the ttle In Pursuit of the Past’ This ex- tremely stimulating work contains a bibliography of, fon my count, 293 items. Of this total, there is (again on my count) not a single one which is primarily con- cerned with any part of the Mediterranean world at any period: the nearest approach, geographically, is perhaps Gordon Childe’s The Danube in Prehistory [As a statistic, this may seem amazing, but itis not tuntypical or freakish in respect of the output of the New Archaeology. What attitudes or motives does it imply? One explanation that may suggest itself is a disereditable one that I shall not adopt: itis that the New Archaeologists are afraid of venturing into a spe- cialist domain where avast body of pre-existing knowledge has tobe assimilated. Ido not advance this view, first because there are examples of distinguished work which has been undertaken in areas like the ar- chaeology of Roman Britain,’ where the difficulty mentioned exists in almost as intense a form as in Mediterranean lands; and secondly because the prob- lems of such an undertaking could anyway be readily ‘overcome by collaboration between a theory-oriented New Archaeologist and a sympathetic Classcist (as wwe have seen, this later breed does exist). A mare likely explanation is surely that New Archaeologists donot conser that such an attempt would be worth- while or justifiable. Nor would such an attiude—if I have correctly diagnosed it—be altogether an injustice to the senti- ments of Classical Archaeologists themselves. The view that, for example, the general principles of ar- chaeology consist of nothing more than common sense, or that archaeology is not an independent branch of knowledge, is sufficiently widespread among Classical Archaeologists to need no individual attribution, Tt constitutes a major deterrent to New “Archaeologists, against holding up their principles to “KL. Flannery ed, The Early Messamerican Vilage (New York 1976), SLE. Binford, fn Pursat of the Pat: Decoding the Archaco- Logical Record (London 1983, JF Cherry and R, Terence eds) ‘THE NEW ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE CLASSICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 3 potential discredit by testing them in a context which the practitioners themselves often do not consider a fair and comparable one; where the formulation of {ree hypotheses is constrained on every side by the body of pre-existing knowledge—and I am not refer- ring only, nor even mainly, tothe knowledge provided by documentary and historical sources: the body of purely archaeological knowledge is, in its own right, colossal, as may be seen by comparing th size of hold ings ofa realy well stocked library of Classical Ar- chacology and a comparable one of general archaeo- logy: the sheer volume will bear no resemblance whatever to the proportions of the two geographical areas covered, and will indeed be by no means dis- parate in absolute terms. But, whatever the reasons for it, the gulf unde ably persists: the criticisms of the New Archaeologists are primarily directed at, and the rejoinders primarily come from, the non-Classical fields of traditional a chacology. ‘The New Archaeology has not pressed home any criticism of Classical Archaeology, and Classical Archaeology has therefore felt free to ignore both the criticisms and the constructive proposals. But there are Classical Archaeologists who do not share this feeling, and it is because I am one of them that Iam speaking on this subject. Like Stephen Dy- son, like James Wiseman,” I feel that Classical Ar- chaeology could learn salutary lessons from the writ ings and the example of the New Archaeology. In- deed, I shall go further than they might wish to go, and certainly T do not want to saddle them with any ‘complicity in what I am going to say next. I feel that traditional archaeology has, in the past generation, centered some kind of minor intellectual crisis, at least in Britain and in some other European countries that T could name. The traditionally minded archaeolo- gists sem to me rather cut off from the mainstream of that kind of intellectual advance which can manifest itself in several disciplines at the same time. Their ‘work does not elicit productive response from people in other subjects, beyond the immediately adjacent ones (such as the historians of the same eulture whose archaeology they themselves practice.) It is not easy for them to point to exciting theoretical or methodo- logical advances in the recent history of their subject, as distinct from the new application of technieal ad~ vances made in other disciplines: obvious examples here are the “radiocarbon revolution” of more than a “See, egy LA. Hodder snd ©. Orton, Spi Analysen Ar chaglogy (Cambridge 1976}; Renfrew (supra 1) 297, ns. 28-35, "See supea 2. u AM. SNODGRASS ‘generation ago, and the “dendrochronological revolu- tion” of twenty years later, where the advances in ideas seem confined to the more o less common-sense deductions that follow from the discovery that a group of finds is much earlier (or less often, much later) than had previously been thought. Real conceptual ad- vances are seldom sought, and even less often achieved. Consider, for example, the chilly reception that has been given, outside and at times even inside France, o the work of the “Paris School” in recent years. Here isa group of people studying the Classical ‘world through what may (very roughly) be called a steucturalist approach: an approach in which the methods of Classical Archaeology, or some of them, are closely integrated with the anthropological tradi- tion of Louis Gernet and others, and applied to many different aspects of ancient society, especially religious cult and ritual, but also ancient literary works of many kinds. If there is anywhere in the world where the material of Classical Archaeology is being put to novel uses, and the subject as a whole embroiled in wide intellectual explorations, it is here.* Yet the re- ward has been, in general, the unjust one of being read, or atleast taken seriously, by very few of their colleagues in Classical Archaeology, and none at all of their counterparts onthe other side ofthe Atlantic, the New Archaeologists who are aso (although in avery diferent way) linking the approaches of archaeology and anthropology. ‘One reason for Classical Archaeologists to welcome the challenge of the New Archaeology is thus, in my view at leas, the fact that they badly need the stimu lus which it ean offer A second reason is that there are already a least one oF two encouraging prece- dents, such as the cas of Aegean Bronze Age archaco- logy to which I shall turn in a moment. First, how- ever, [should state clearly what itis that T think the New Archaeology has to offer. Even in its short life so far, the new discipline has undergone some rather drastic re-orientations. A leading figure like Lewis Binford has to expend some of his energies in rebuk- ing over-enthusiastic followers, who have pressed new doctrines to0 far.” The early insistence on pursuing ‘universal laws of human behavior, exemplified in the archaeological record, has (probably justifiably) met ‘with recent discouragement from within the New Ar- chacology. This process of distillation has been salu- tary: it dispenses the rest of the archaeological world * See, eG. Gaol and J-P. Vernant eds. La mor tes mors dans to sotté ancienner (Cambridge 1982); ns arches fie et histoire ancenne (Lausanne) and Cente de recherches fomparées sur les soctesancennes (Pai), La cité des images (Pan 1980). lajass from the arrogant and laborious operation of “choos ing the best” out of what the New Archaeology has to offer, since this operation has already been carried ‘out, atleast in part. And the contribution that remains is sil an important one. Its to the New Archaeology that we owe our growing self-awareness, our realiza~ tion of the highly debatable nature of what we are doing when we make archaeological inferences. An- ‘other of its services has been to inculcate respect for the quantitative method: so many of the arguments and generalizations in traditional archaeology have a covertly quantitative basis, yet only recently has it be- come common to express this basis in numerical terms—the size of a sample, the degree of a prepon- derance, the changes in a proportion through time— so that a preliminary evaluation of the argument be- comes possible, before one moves on to the more crit= ical task of evaluating the basis itself is the sample valid? is the proportion biased? and so on. Its in this later area, I believe, that the New Archaeology has ‘made its most significant contribution of all. Here we center the territory of what Binford calls “Middle Range Theory," of what David Clarke called *Pre- depositional and Depositional Theory,”" of what still ‘others call “Behavioral Archaeology.” ‘The differences in terminology should not disguise the fact that, most ‘of the time, these different authorities are talking about the same kind of thing: that is, the true meaning ‘of the archaeological record. For some of these in- sights, we should not have had to wait for the enlight- enment given by the New Archaeology: the lessons could have been learned from quite a different source, namely the view of archaeology taken by the outside ‘world, A good starting point would have been the car- toons of the New Yorker or Punch: the image of the archaeologist here is often that of an enterprising per- son, perhaps a lucky person, but not usually a very clever person. A recurrent theme is the misinterpre= tation, by archaeologists of the future, of some bizarre creation of our contemporary culture. The main point of such humor may be to ridicule the eccentricities of modern society, but a second implication is that these very eccentricities are what make society so difficult to understand, and so easy to misinterpret, for those who belong to another age. Now it would be possible to argue that Classical Archaeology has long been practicing, under different names, the very procedures that the New Archaeology. » Binfrd (supra. 8) 15, 105-108 "© Binford (supra a. 5) 76, 194-95 cing Binforde, For Theory Building in Avcaesogy (New York 1977) 1-10 "CED. Clarke, "Archacology: The Las of Innocence,” Ant auity 47 (1973) 6-18 (18) 1985] is advocating when it urges the development of middle range theory, for instance. It would be a satisfying in- dulgence for me to develop this ine of argument, but I am not sure that it would serve any greater purpose than to boost the self-confidence of Classical Archaeo- logists. What I will assert, however, is that Classical Archaeology stil offers an incomparable field for put- ting into further practice the principles of the New Archaeologists. Let it not be forgotten that David Clarke himself once offered encouragement: “Text~ aided archaeology,” he wrote, would “provide vital experiments” by offering the control of documentary sources over purely material-based inferences, as long as the inherent biases of each were borne in mind."? Was this a declaration of intent, oF an invitation to others? Whichever it was, he made the statement in 1973; three years later, he was dead; and his col- leagues have not shown much inelination follow his lead. Yet Iam convinced that he was ight, and that a phase of intensive experiment within a “controlled” field like that of Classical Archaeology would work ‘wonders for the mutual respect, and the general ered- ibility, of both sides. There ae, of course, major discouragements sill in the way. There isa deep difference of mentality on the two sides, shown by what each regards as “interest ing.” For Binford, particularizing approaches arein their nature “trivial” and “uninteresting.” Now itis possible, in mathematics or philosophy for instance, to use the word “interesting” in a way that atleast pur- ports to be objective; that is, to use it of findings and arguments which have repercussions or implications beyond the immediate context in which they arose. It may be that Binford uses these words, at times, in some such sense; but I am sure that he also means them in their familiar everyday sense (as indeed is suggested by his also using the word “boring” of par- ticularizing approaches), and I am equally sure that he is sincere. Yet many Classical Archaeologists pur= sue the partcularized precisely because they person- ally do find it interesting; a conclusion about ith cen tury Athens, even if valid for no other society in his- tory, nevertheless interests them very much. All that this shows is that the mentality of late twentieth cen= tury western man is sil a very heterogeneous one. ‘There is also the issue of language'*—the language in which the two sides express themselves: an especially sensitive area for Classicists, who are trained, often from their early youth, in the habit, whenever they use a word, of automatically asking themselves its "Clarke (apea m1) 18, "GF Gouri supra n.3) 211-12. * Courbin (supra m3) 130-35, 147-48, ‘THE NEW ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE CLASSICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 3 exact meaning. But I promised myself that I would say nothing about this, and I shall try to keep my promise It is time, instead, to turn to what I consider the strongest argument in favor of collaboration between the New Archacology and traditional Classical Ar- chacology in its strict sense: namely, the precedent of- fered by recent experience in the closely allied field of ‘Aegean Bronze Age archacology. What I am going to say now will not, I fear, make me many friends—es- pecially not in Britain, that longstanding stronghold fof Aegean Bronze Age studies. But for some twenty ‘years past I have been experiencing a feling of grow- ing unease about the progress of this subject, quite distinct from that aroused by contemplation of Classi- cal Archaeology proper. In the Bronze Age field, the feeling relates not so much tothe methods, or the nar- rowness of the aspects usually studied, but to some- thing harder to describe. I felt again very strongly ‘when, two years ago, Iread a statement by one of the most thoughtful American practitioners of the subject: “After more than a century of scholarship”, writes Philip Betancourt, “Mycenaean studies are still in their vigorous youth." What is worrying about this statement is that iti so absolutely true. The vigor of Aegean Bronze Age studies is of course a matter for satisfaction, but should they not by now have out- sown their youth? One is glad thatthe subject is a volatile and exciting one, but one would expect it to have acquired maturity as well. One of the connota- tions of youth is conveyed by a remark of William Pitt the elder (from a speech made in his late middle age): “Youth isthe season of credulity.” In Aegean Bronze ‘Age archaeology, indeed, too much has been believed too readily, and repeated in a series of secondary teeatments to the point where it acquired the status of an axiom, The great names in Aegean Bronze Age archaeology are the names not of its thinkers nor of its masters of the visual approach (as is largely true in Classical Archaeology), but of its excavators. The place which in Classical Archaeology is occupied by the ancient sources, and in Near Eastern archaeology by the cuneiform and hieroglyphic texts and the Bible, is taken in the Aegean Bronze Age by the early ex:

    You might also like