Is post-processualism bound to happen everywhere? The French case

Abstract

It may seem surprising that post-processual archaeology has not had any impact in France, given that much of its vocabulary has been borrowed from French intellectuals. The answer is not archaeological. It does not lie in the events of the last 20 years, which have profoundly changed the structure, practices and means of French archaeology. The problem is more fundamental, and derives from the differences of mentality and culture.

The Garbage Crisis in prehistory: artefact discard patterns at the Early Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27 and the origins of household refuse disposal strategies

“…We echo Coudart's (1998Coudart's ( , 1999 bafflement over the continuing popularity of 'processual' and 'post-processual' approaches in Anglophone archaeology; the former with its flawed methodological core; the latter crowding so many disparate voices under its banner as to lack a coherent core at all. We highlight our remoteness from processualism because we do indeed concentrate in this paper on topics dear to processualist researchers, such as ethnographic analogy, and broadly based cultural trends.…”

Materialism, Mode of Production, and a Millennium of Change in Southern Mexico

“…Such apathy is consistent with Hegmon's (2003: 233) explanation that it is the result of decades of polemics by both processualists and post-processualits (see also Conkey 2007;Trigger 2006: 485-486;Skibo 2009: 36-41). Apathy towards Anglo-American theoretical debate may also be shared by continental European archaeologists (e.g., Coudart 1997;Veit 2004). If it is true that most North American archaeologists who are part of the so-called Generations X and Y (with post-2000 dissertations) would rather "do archaeology" than explore the theoretical basis of their interpretations, then framing their work within what they perceive to be the current theoretical norm may account for the frequency of citations to Bourdieu and Giddens. Classical Marxism may be perceived as old-fashioned by the current (i.e., my) generation of archaeologists.…”

Tool Standardization in the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic: a Closer Look (with comments)

“…) recognize immediately just how limited, subjective and essentialist typological systematics can be. And the French, who do a lot of primary fieldwork but who exhibit neither a concern with, nor even an awareness of, epistemology in their research traditions, don't see the problems with this (Binford & Sabloff 1982;Cleuziou et al 1991;Sackett 1988;Clark 1993;Coudart 1999;Audouze 1999;Scarre & Stoddart 1999;Bisson 2000). I've written extensively on the different assumptions, preconceptions, and biases that underlie differences in the logic of inference between the research traditions of Latin Europe and those of the anglophone world (Clark 1993;.…”