Post-processual archaeology

The post processual archeology, sometimes called Interpretative archeology, is an archaeological theory that emphasizes the subjectivity of archaeological interpretations. Instead of a focus outlined number of similarities is post processual archeology of versatile lines of thought that are combined to form a loose structure of traditions. Within the post- processualism a variety of theoretical archaeological points of view was summarized, including structuralism and neo- Marxism, as well as a number of different archaeological techniques, such as phenomenology.

6.1 Notes and references
6.2 Literature

History of Research

The post- processual archeology is seen as a critical response to the New Archaeology and the " processual archeology ". The coined by the British archaeologist Ian Hodder term includes new trends in archeology, were critical since the 1980s with the New Archaeology. A leader in this debate were universities in England (especially Cambridge ) and Scandinavia. Among the newly developed approaches include structuralism inherited from France, post-structuralism, the contextual archeology with the theoretical background of hermeneutics and phenomenology. Also been incorporated ideas from feminist, Marxist and literary currents, as well as from the general theory of culture.

All of these tendencies is the opposition to the procedural archeology reason, are strongly criticized on the four aspects. First, their positivism, according to which interpretations can be developed on the basis of theories based on the objective knowledge of the data collected. Representatives of Postprozessualismus argue that incorporate subjective perceptions with already in data collection and in the documentation of an excavation, but even more so in the modeling and interpretation. Second, it is criticized that no attempts are made to explore the mindsets and mentalities of past social groups and included in the interpretations. In the post- processual archeology this became a topic of vital importance. Third, both the individual and the material culture to passive and external influences ( nature, environment) would be displayed depending on the processual archeology. Social change rather should include the actions of individuals. Material culture is conceptualized in this context both as a tool and as an intrinsically effective. Fourth, the method of cross-cultural comparisons is problematic in that by neglecting the own of a society, culture or social group, and thus the story. The post- processual archeology, however, is interested in the specific transformation of local entities in the mirror of action full trains.

Overall, it was the goal of the post- processual archeology, to provide social practices at the heart of past interest and to explore the meanings of symbols for archaeologically tangible social groups. In addition, the restriction should be avoided on a seemingly correct interpretation through greater scope for interpretation. Until the 1990s, the post- processual archeology but often remained herewith a criticism of an older paradigm. In 1980 there was a conference which may be regarded today as the first public appearance of this new direction under the aegis of Ian Hodder.

From the 1990s, archaeological theory was more strongly associated with practice and the post- processual archeology has now been summarized for some time under the term " Interpretative archeology ". It was assumed that different people, each with different social backgrounds the past automatically different interpretieren.Hermeneutik and recourse to literature and philosophy (including Barthes, Derrida) meant that post- processual archaeologists the past compared with a text that read it " " and was not only a " owns real " content, but can be charged depending on the reader with various truths. Today there is in the English archeology is general agreement that there can be no best and only theory - a theory - pragmatism characterizes the recent phase of Postprozessualismus. The most important representatives of the Postprozessualismus are Ian Hodder, Michael Shanks, Christopher Tilley, John Barrett and Julian Thomas.

Symbols and their meaning

In contrast to procedural archeology, which focuses on features, usage and Production of an artifact, in the contextual archeology, the cultural significance of material culture is emphasized. The background showing the assumption that all elements of a culture are constructed so that they are always already charged with meaning. Influenced by a growing interest in linguistics, structuralism and semiotics from the mid-1970s in the humanities, the theory that material legacies are to be regarded as symbols that can be read like a text similar and are subject to certain rules came into being. Symbols are defined as carriers of meaning, which are connected with one or more ideas. You can not just characters and images, but also objects and installations. For example, a stove understood in its functional importance as a stove, but are intuitively perceived as the center of a household. Such units of meaning in different contexts may have different, even contradictory meanings. The emphasis is on the context of objects. The object receives its concrete ( n ) meaning (s ) from the context and is simultaneously the context to make sense. So there is a dynamic interaction between object and context. An object can also have different meanings (s) for its manufacturer, the people who have used it and have for archaeologists. Accordingly, meanings change over time and depend on the changing contexts and performers. Their understanding, in turn, is linked to the context and / or the presence of relevant prior knowledge. Since objects allow multiple interpretations, meanings are always polysemic, ie there is not a right, but different, dependent on the context, valid meanings. Using the example of the hearth the above principles would look like this: The denotations for the builders of the hearth are the possibilities for the preparation of hot food as well as use as a heat source for the house residents. The connotations that may include a stove, arising from the context. If the stove is the only heat source of the household, he symbolizes almost certainly his social and communication center, which in the context of cold climate in turn has a higher relevance than near the equator. In the world of experience of a child, a stove will have an entirely different meaning than for an adult, being of course the fire and its taming have their own symbolism, starting you could make another meaning of the chain.

Methods: Hermeneutics

The central method of post- processual archeology to decipher the symbols hermeneutics serves. An approach to foreign worlds of ideas should be achieved by the process of the hermeneutic circle. The starting point here is an extensive collection of materials as possible, with the help of a sensible question to be asked. The existing knowledge is then searched for an answer to the previously formulated question, a gain in knowledge that extends the initial knowledge in hope. On the basis of new knowledge, this process can be repeated as ( equal to a spiral) and should thus lead to a better and better "understanding" of past performances. As a result, a number equivalent to possibly even contradictory interpretations that can not be falsified, but are just different plausible. From the concept of the hermeneutic circle is clear that in this area of research is no objective science is possible, because we can never be completely unbiased. Prejudices of social, political and scientific nature unconsciously affect all interpretations of the past. There is no "correct" and final interpretation possible, which is why every / r is given the right to form their own opinion about the past. The hermeneutic circle represents a never-ending process in which each new generation should be encouraged to re- evaluate the existing knowledge.

Multivokalität

The reception of Foucault's works by the post- processual archeology meant that the relationship between power and knowledge, particularly academic knowledge, became aware. At the same time resistors excited, especially on the part of Native Americans in the United States, against an archeology, the graves of the indigenous populations digging unreflected in search of grave goods and signs of non-Western rituals, objects and skeletons in museum basements housed, or even exhibited. The resistance to this perceived as predatory and continued ethnocide science of archeology was taken seriously by the post- processual archeology, in contrast to the representatives of the procedural, cultural, historical and evolutionary directions. They talked first of the consideration of the interests of " stakeholders " in general, covering not only indigenous groups, but also landowners, communities living close to an excavation site, which can be meant by "the public", but in specific cases also religiously motivated. Archaeology retained immediate task of orchestrating such a voice. The archaeological discourse had thus not yet clear queued in the of " stakeholders " as equivalent. The latter extreme came in the wake of post-colonial considerations on more obvious, as post-colonial historians and other intellectuals accused the West, the entire rationality of argumentation is an instrument of domination and oppression of others. Tend to it, as if one was moving from dialogue with interested lay in a direction in which each / r could provide an interpretation of archaeological results with equal justice seemed. Therefore Multivokalität is often sharply attacked as " relativism ", the fascists, racists and chauvinists the way to legitimate discourse in archaeological open spheres, such as minorities and who have no say in the interpretation of their own past. The project in Çatalhöyük is a good example of practicing Multivokalität, because on the website at least, interested parties can contribute, including, among other Ökonfeministen with their ideas for the interpretation of the project. Other interested parties, the much more clearly speaking here as it is usually the case, some local residents, such as a dig guard. Nevertheless, one must distinguish between an unlimited - naive self- redemption, which ultimately among the stakeholders those the clearest voice out there that a priori already have most power, and a reflexive Multivokalität that produces a good many voices in dialogue on all sides. Postprozessualismus includes both.

Agency: Origin and content

The Agency theories belong to the post- processual archeology and are thus part of the response to procedural system models and structuralism. For the concept of "agency " (English for action potential, action, activity ), there is no uniform definition general, it is the archaeological exploration of the scope for action of people. Agency sets itself apart from the usual in processual archeology of the term " behavior", which followed the changes of human cultures to external influences such as climate, natural disasters and similar returns, and processes of history rather on large time scales. Agency is linked to the action theories of sociologists of the 19th and 20th centuries (such as Karl Marx, Max Weber). Since the 1980s, sociological theories have been adopted in archaeological research, so action-theoretical concepts slowly found application in the fields of feminism, gender studies and cognitive archeology. A scientific discourse for dealing with agency, however, began only in 2000 with the anthology "Agency in Archaeology" by Marcia -Anne and John Robb Dobres.

Theory

Martin Wobst deals with the relationship between material culture and the action potential of the people. On one hand, the production of an artifact is an influence on the environment, but on the other hand, it also affects the human community, in and from which it was created. An artifact always has a social component. This can be worked out by calculating the ratio between functional and non-functional parts of an artifact is evaluated. Only after this can say whether " value " has been placed on optimizing whether aesthetics plays a role, or whether this artifact perhaps no social attention has been paid.

Timothy R. Pauketat used the agency theory for the interpretation of the emergence of social hierarchies in the Mississippi region. Agency anticipates that people often have no idea what effect the scale of these structures for the long term. The stratigraphic sequence of mounds in the Mississippi region show that the mounds were piled up in the annual ritual related design cycles. So the builders were acting in the sense of tradition. Unconsciously structures were created with the care of this tradition, from which emerged the long term social hierarchies.

The agency theories are concerned with the detection of individuals and their actions. Everyone hits from a ( personal, social, economic, environmental, etc.) situation out decisions, ie it is characterized by a prior knowledge. Even the thought of being able to be free and do what it pleases one, going back to specific circumstances that allow him only. This knowledge gives him an action potential, and thus a filtered discretion, which ultimately a choice is made by weighing. It is about the exploration of a culturally defined group means as exact as possible methods such as, for example, Demographics or Paläopsychologie. For the application of Agency, it is important to recognize the reasons that led to the decisions that have concluded an individual or a group. It will attempt to assign reasons and intentions of an action chain. In order to identify and formulate intentions can, a large context must be detectable ( physical and social environment, status of the individual and structure of the social fabric ). A basic assumption is that there is no static structure of culture. Each action of an individual always has a direct and indirect effect on the culture. Thus, the culture as such is never the same at two points in time, but always only an approximation of abstracted characteristics.

Hodder postulated that historical processes are caused by the actions of individuals. " The power of the people to action " is in the foreground. Also in the agency discourse, notions such as the " free will of the individual ," the " perception of the people through his body " and the resulting reflection of reality into objects in the center. There it is trying to approximate a perspective of archaeological cultures, which corresponds to the perspective of their original party. One problem with this approach lies in the archaeological sources. Such a hermeneutic explanation is highly dependent on the assumption that the underlying data would have to be very dense. Therefore, let this make sense to apply only at a few localities, such as at Pompeii, Çatalhöyük or on the " Iceman ".

Criticism of Agency

A major criticism of the theories of action ( Agency) is that structure changing actions were less dominant in pre-modern times. Only in the course of industrialization can be targeted convertible are considered rationally appropriate. Furthermore, it is criticized here, that does not discuss the role played by the social conditions that shape and change the consciousness unconsciously. The question of how consciousness arises and how it is composed, is not provided. Man is primarily viewed here as a producer and consumer, which illustrates the influence of late-capitalist ideas. The Postprozessualisten also set the action a sense based on that but in many cases can not be verbalized. At most " intuitive " meanings can be attached to objects, ie that certain design and performance characteristics are taken from social conventions out or changed or questioned. However, as can different intuitive meanings in the archaeological record of explicit, discursive meanings, it is not clear so far.

Lewis Binford exercised strong criticism of some of Ian Hodder established theories. So says Hodder that archeology could explore the meanings of legacies through the process of understanding. So objects have both a them metered economic value as well as a symbolic and thus social character. However, this understanding presupposes as much knowledge about the past that they are reluctant to provide the basic pursuit of archeology of knowledge and thus is impractical.

More criticism refers to the acceptance Hodder, archaeological legacies should be seen as codes and symbols. The situation-specific expression of their materiality and meaning is fathomable and readable. Colin Renfrew also agrees with this criticism and considers these theoretical approaches for Hodder's not practical.

Hermeneutics as an approach to detect mental worlds of past cultures is, the assumption that every human individual can put themselves in a strange cultural situation to him, regardless of temporal, spatial and social differences. From a similarity of the spiritual worlds of the present and past cultures is hardly to be expected. Since only fragments of the past are present, a historically absolutely correct research result will never be possible. It is also hard to argue with purely rational hermeneutics, because the actions of people has not only intended but also unintended consequences. Behind every human action is a worldview of actors, concepts and categorizations that are always socially dependent. Precisely for this reason it is important to distinguish between the subject and the research- past self. A thorough prior knowledge of the past culture is therefore essential in hermeneutics, what hermeneutics also gives a very clear error-prone data - oriented side. Another point of criticism of structuralist hermeneutic interpretations is that they can not be refuted, they are just that more or even less plausible. Were criticized early on and developed from structuralist specifications pairs of opposites which have been taken for granted. However, the binary nature of this thinking must not be timeless valid.

But after Eggert suggested the post- processualism with his radical questioning of the concepts of processualism a self- critical reflection on what leads to rethinking traditional positions. Even after Bern Beck post procedural approaches have greatly expanded the debates on theories and background knowledge of archeology. From the archaeological research at the level of synthesis they are here to stay.