The Place of Chronological Studies in Archaeology a View From the Old World*

Kristiansen, Kristian

doi:10.1111/j.1468-0092.1985.tb00247.x

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This, however, was always a rhetorical analogy -a metaphor. I discussed this problematic with some Bronze Age examples many years ago and demonstrated that variations in typological change -innovation versus tradition -could always be linked to social and economic conditions (Kristiansen 1985).…”

Section: To Be Challenged or Not -That Is The Questionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kristiansen¹

2004

Arch. Dial.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 Theoretical dialogue has been replaced by theoretical closure at the risk of separating archaeological research into mutually incompatible traditions that ignore publications aligned with other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

show abstract

Section: To Be Challenged or Not -That Is The Questionmentioning

confidence: 99%