Genes versus agents. A discussion of the widening theoretical gap in archaeology

Abstract

It is argued that archaeological theory during the last decade has lost its theoretical nerve by accepting the development of epistemologically incompatible approaches. Two recent books exemplify the widening theoretical gap in archaeology between different schools of thought, with different interpretative interests. They are Steve Shennan's Genes, memes and human history. Darwinian archaeology and cultural evolution (2002), and John Robb and Marcia-Anne Dobres's edited volume Agency in archaeology (2000). To overcome this theoretical divide it is necessary to revive the theoretical debate, based upon epistemological principles relevant to archaeology as a historical discipline. Keywords agency; culture history; comparative approach; Darwinian archaeology; theoretical debate During the last decade we have seen a development in archaeological theory from a concern with plurality to an increasing concern with the growing disparity in theoretical thinking (Trigger 1998; Schiffer 2000b). Following the often rather fierce debates of the 1980s that positioned postprocessual archaeology, the 1990s saw a need to be reconciled, and a theoretical openness or willingness developed to accept the relevance of different schools of thought. I wish to argue that this development has now reached a critical limit. Theoretical dialogue has been replaced by theoretical closure at the risk of separating archaeological research into mutually incompatible traditions that ignore publications aligned with other theoretical programmes. This has been termed 'redlining' by Michael Schiffer (2000b). If we wish to change this situation we need to reopen the theoretical debate, by relating theoretical positions to epistemological questions relevant to archaeology as a historical discipline.To get there, however, demands a change of attitude and recognition of some rather simple observations. First, no single theoretical programme covers the whole interpretative range of variation in the archaeological record. Second, theoretical programmes consequently need to become more realistic in their claims to interpretative coverage. Third, theoretical programmes can then more profitably look into the interpretative and explanatory complementarity between themselves. This would allow a reopening of

La Arqueología y la Antropología cultural: entrelazamientos pretéritos y presentes

“…Incluso se ha producido un cierto declive del debate teórico explícito, que algunas voces intentan paliar. En cierto modo, lo que se establece en los noventa es una suerte de consenso (un "pluralismo consensual", como lo ha definido Lucas 2016, o un "nuevo pragmatismo", como señalan Preucel y Mrozowski 2010), a partir de la hibridación de los aportes procesuales y postprocesuales más estimados, y tal y como señalaron Olsen et al (2012), una cierta "trivialización de la teoría", que habría perdido filo crítico o, en opinión de Kristiansen (2004), una "brecha teórica" (ing. theoretical gap), resultante de haber aceptado el desarrollo de enfoques epistemológicamente incompatibles, que habrían hecho necesario revivir un debate teórico durmiente.…”

“…De acuerdo con el historiador de la arqueología Bruce G. Trigger (1989), la disciplina viene marcada además por una dicotomía entre el idealismo y el materialismo. Kristiansen (2004), por el contrario, entiende que la dicotomía contrapone perspectivas orientadas al sujeto y a la agencia, frente a perspectivas orientadas a la ciencia.…”

Life among the tides : recent archaeology on the Georgia Bight : proceedings of the Sixth Caldwell Conference, St. Catherines Island, Georgia, May 20-22, 2011.

“…In addition, the use of agency in archaeology often assumes that all social change comes from the action of individuals, usually the self-interested kind, ignoring other sources of social change (Kristiansen, 2004;Carr and Case, 2006: 36-42). Further, the majority of the time, archaeologists speak only of the agency of rulers, leaders, and the like, often neglecting the agency of commoners (see Pauketat, 2000, for an exception), as well as other agents with a diversity of interests that may or may not be self serving (Blanton and Fargher, 2008: 5-6).…”

Bintliff, J and Pearce, M. (eds.) 2011. The Death of Archaeological Theory?

“…This introduction is immediately followed by Bintliff's paper, where the author uses extensive quotations from prominent theorists to demonstrate the ingress of sometimes dogmatic ideology into archaeological theory, to the detriment of evidence-based methodology, multivocality and plurality in interpretation. In this Bintliff is both success- Kristiansen (2004) and Tilley (1994). However, his utter rejection of "those that preach that a (any?)…”