JILL K. GARDNER discovered archaeology by chance. She fell in
love with the field, changed her career goal, and is now a pro-
In 1990, I was attending a community college preparing for a career in business. One
of the requirements at the college, of course, was a science class. I looked over the
list and saw something called biological anthropology! I didn’t know what it was,
but it sounded intriguing (and easy for me as
it turned out) and it fulfilled the requirement.
So I signed up for the biological anthropology
class. It was the best decision I ever made in my life. I took
the lecture class and then the lab class, and I had a great
time. The instructor—who later became a lifelong friend
and colleague—made the class so much fun and so inter-
esting that when it was over, I was really depressed. I
thought it was too late to pursue a different career. After all,
I was a business major.
A few months went by. Then I ran into this instructor
on campus. He had always managed to get people to volun-
teer as student aides without ever having to ask, but this
quarter he was complaining because he didn’t have any as-
sistants. So I told him to give me a call if he needed any help,
and that started a two-year apprenticeship with him while I
finished my business degree. This chance encounter was a
major turning point in my life, although screened, and by the end of the day I was
I didn’t know it at the time. After all, I wet, muddy, and smelly, but I was happier
was a business major. than I ever knew was possible. I loved ar-
Because he was an archaeologist, one chaeology but I was a business major.
day this instructor asked me if I was interested I knew I had to find a way to change my
in going out with him to an archaeological site career track. After I finished my community col-
being excavated by a friend of his. I had never lege work, I began attending a local university,
been on an archaeological site before, so I said taking anthropology courses while I worked full-
sure, I’d love to. The site was a prehistoric vil- time in business, hating every minute my job
lage in Orange County, California, and covered took me away from my passion. I was not much
about one acre. I did not know it was unusual impressed with the course offerings at the uni-
at the time, but the artifact assemblage was versity, but felt tied to it as my job was in the area.
quite impressive, and contained many kinds of Then at the first professional conference I ever
artifacts, including projectile points, fishhooks, attended, I met an archaeologist from another
and milling equipment, as well as a great deal university. I was recruited and transferred to the
of bone and shellfish. This wonderful site was new school, where they had a good archaeology
my first experience in digging and screening. program. I got my B.A., then my M.A., began
The soil from the excavation was being wet- work on my Ph.D., and have never looked back.
For the location of sites mentioned in this chapter, see the map on p. 57.
Archaeology after World War II
Jill Gardner was the beneficiary of changes in professional archaeology following
World War II. Most archaeological work around the world was interrupted by World
War II, and many researchers entered the military service of their various countries. After
the war, a new generation of archaeologists began to work, and the construction of culture
histories and chronologies remained the primary goals in archaeology. Soon after the war,
a number of developments took place that changed the way archaeology was done. A rev-
olution in dating methods and other technical developments permitted archaeologists to
begin asking why questions, in addition to the traditional who, what, when, and where
questions. Over time, some archaeologists began to become dissatisfied with pursuing only
culture history, setting the stage for a paradigm shift from description to explanation.
Prior to World War II, placing archaeological materials in time was a difficult and in-
accurate task. In some cases, very accurate direct dating was possible but very limited, such
as having inscriptions with dates or the use of tree-ring dating in a few areas. Most ar-
chaeological materials were indirectly dated on the basis of stratigraphy, general artifact
types, and cross-dating estimates. Although it was known that some things were older or
younger, actual dates could only be guessed. Developing sequences and chronologies con-
sumed a great deal of archaeological energy.
C H A P T E R 3 : T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F C O N T E M P O R A RY A R C H A E O L O G Y 57
L O C AT I O N MAP: Sites Mentioned in Chapter 3
5 Atlantic Ocean
Central Africa 2
South America Australia
1 I Lake Tulare 7 I “Iceman”
Tulare, California Bolzano, Italy
2 I Aka people 8 I Cleopatra’s palace
Northeastern Congo, central Africa Alexandria Harbor, Egypt
3 I Nunamuit Eskimo 9 I Qin terra-cotta army
Barrow, Alaska Shaanxi province, China
4 I Landfills 10 I Red-headed mummies
Tucson, Arizona Tarim Basin, western China
5 I El Mirador 11 I Oxus civilization
Carmelita, Guatemala Mary (Margiana), Turkmenistan,
58 PA R T I : W H AT I S A R C H A E O L O G Y ? www.ablongman.com/sutton
A direct outgrowth of the wartime atomic bomb program was the development of the
radiocarbon dating technique, easily one of the most important events in archaeology
after World War II. The radiocarbon technique permitted the direct and accurate dating
of almost anything organic, and it revolutionized the way in which sites and artifacts were
dated. As it turned out, many of the chronologies so painstakingly constructed prior to
radiocarbon were confirmed by the new dates. As radiocarbon dating became more and
more routine, archaeologists were generally relieved of the demanding task of construct-
ing chronologies through indirect means. As a result, they could begin to spend their time
looking into other aspects of the past. Radiocarbon continues to form the backbone of
most archaeological dating.
World War II also stimulated the computer revolution and the use of complex statis-
tics. After the war, more sophisticated machines and programs were developed that could
begin to deal with large sets of numbers. The use of modern statistical techniques was in-
troduced into archaeology in the early 1950s, with the idea that statistical analysis of artifact
attributes could be used to discover and define artifact types (Spaulding 1953). Formal sam-
pling approaches for use in finding, excavating, and analyzing archaeological materials be-
gan in the 1960s, and the use of computers in archaeology began at about the same time. As
the capabilities of the machines grew, efforts to develop statistical theory also increased. The
ability to use quantitative methods in the sciences began to grow at an amazing rate, and the
introduction of versatile and affordable computers after the 1970s made a huge impact.
Today, the use of statistical methods in archaeology is common and widespread.
Probabilistic sampling and modeling are used in the analysis of past artifact and site pop-
ulations. Most archaeological work now includes formal sampling and statistical ap-
proaches for survey, excavation, and artifact analysis (Ammerman 1992; Aldenderfer and
Maschner 1996; Drennan 1996; Aldenderfer 1998; Orton 2000) and the use of computers
in analysis is common as well (McPherron and Dibble 2002). A timeline for the develop-
ment of contemporary archaeology is presented in Figure 3.1.
By the late 1940s and early 1950s, the basic chronologies and culture histories of
many regions had been developed and were being refined, and accurate and routine dat-
ing of archaeological materials and sites became possible. Some archaeologists began to
ask why questions, and the focus of archaeological research began to change from mere
description to include explanation. As early as 1948, Walter Taylor (1948) proposed that
archaeology should be anthropological; it should do more than classify artifacts and try
to understand past cultures. Taylor’s plea was echoed by some others, who recognized that
“Too often we dig up mere things, unrepentantly forgetful that our proper aim is to dig
up people” (Wheeler 1955:4). But Taylor’s call for archaeology to do anthropology rather
than history was largely ignored, especially in Europe, where archaeology was firmly tied
to history. It seems that in the 1950s, the discipline of archaeology was just not yet ready
C H A P T E R 3 : T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F C O N T E M P O R A RY A R C H A E O L O G Y 59
f i g u r e 3 . 1
Timeline: Development of Contemporary Archaeology
PA R A D I G M DAT E PEOPLE, EVENTS, AND SITES
RISE OF 1930s–1940s Julian Steward’s ideas establish the field of cultural ecology, applied, for
SCIENTIFIC example, by Gordon Willey in Peru.
1948 Walter Taylor calls for a broader, more anthropological, culture-based
approach in archaeology.
1949 Willard Libby announces his invention of radiocarbon dating.
1950s–1960s Archaeological research in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, including China
1952 After excavating Star Carr in Britain, Grahame Clark publishes Prehistoric
Europe: The Economic Basis.
1952–1958 Kathleen Kenyon excavates the ancient city of Jericho down to its Neolithic
1956 Anna O. Shepard, pioneer in petrographic analysis, publishes Ceramics for
the Archaeologist. John Mulvaney establishes Australian antiquity.
1960s Lewis Binford and others publish articles on the “New (Processual) Archae-
PROCESSUAL ology,” applied, for example, by Richard MacNeish in Tehuacan Valley, Mex-
ARCHAEOLOGY ico, and Robert Braidwood in Iraq, focusing on a search for origins.
1960s–1970s Ethnoarchaeology established through works of Richard Gould among the
Australian Aborigines, Richard Lee among the !Kung Bushmen, and Lewis
Binford among the Nunamuit Eskimo.
1972 Thor Heyerdahl makes a trans-Atlantic voyage in Ra II, an early but uncon-
vincing instance of experimental archaeology.
1976 After recording rock art and excavating at Olduvai Gorge, Mary Leakey
finds 3.7-million-year-old human footprints at Laetoli, Tanzania.
1979 Anthropologist Marvin Harris publishes his influential framework, cultural
1980s–1990s Ian Hodder, Mark Leone, and others publish criticisms of processual archae-
POST- ology, calling for less concern with scientific method and more emphasis on
P RO C ESSUAL the interpretation of symbolic, cognitive, and unique aspects of the human
1984 Archaeologist Marija Gimbutas calls for greater attention to the importance
of women in prehistory. Margaret Conkey points out gender bias in the dis-
cipline of archaeology.
1986 The first meeting of the World Archaeological Congress convenes amid
political controversy about the role of archaeology in the real world.
1993 Ian Hodder begins postprocessual reinterpretation of Çatalhöyük, where
excavations were first undertaken by James Mellaart in 1961.
60 PA R T I : W H AT I S A R C H A E O L O G Y ? www.ablongman.com/sutton
to move to the next level. However, a few younger archaeologists were greatly influenced
by the need for archaeology to be explanatory, and the stage was set for a major change in
the way archaeology was done.
Beginning in 1962, Lewis Binford published a series of papers (e.g., Binford 1962,
1964) that called upon archaeology to become scientific. Binford argued that archaeology
is a science, that the past is real and knowable, and that archaeology, like any science,
should adopt the scientific method, using data to generate hypotheses to be tested by ad-
ditional data. Archaeology, Binford argued, should make full use of scientific technology,
quantitative techniques, and computers. Further, he contended that archaeology should
not only list finds but also contribute to anthropology, the study of humans. Culture is tied
together in a system in which all aspects are interrelated and changes in one aspect spawn
changes in others, and the search for cultural processes is important.
Processual archaeology was rapidly adopted by many archaeologists, especially in the
United States, where archaeology was closely related to anthropology. It was not well re-
ceived outside the United States and was particularly criticized in Europe because of
archaeology’s long-standing ties with history there. Nevertheless, some European archae-
ologists made major contributions to scientific archaeology (Clarke 1968). Processual ar-
chaeology represented a paradigm shift (from history to science) away from the earlier
way archaeology was done, but it became the standard system employed by most archae-
ologists, even in Europe. Adopting the method of scientific inquiry meant that specific
rules had to be followed, speculation and conjecture had to be testable, and explicit re-
search designs had to be developed and implemented.
In spite of the shift to explanation as the main objective of archaeology, there still re-
mains a critical need for the discovery, description, and classification of baseline data, and
the development of culture histories and the determination of chronology remain major
goals in archaeology. Some contemporary archaeologists consider this kind of basic work
as “unworthy” of attention. However, as in all science, properly described and classified ar-
chaeological data are required before any hypotheses, theories, or models of the past can
be constructed and tested.
Research Design in Scientific Archaeology
One of the central aspects of scientific archaeology is the requirement for an explicit, writ-
ten, research design prior to conducting any work. All archaeologists operate under some
general theoretical framework, and all have some idea of what questions they are re-
searching when they conduct archaeological investigations. Until about the late 1960s,
many research plans, goals, and justifications of methods were either poorly developed
or nonexistent. Today, an explicit research design is an integral part of archaeology and of
archaeologists’ use of the scientific method.
A research design (Table 3.1) begins with the specific hypotheses, questions, or prob-
lems to be addressed, the theoretical approach to be used in the investigation, the biases
of the investigators, the kinds of data sought to address the question, and the methods to
be used to obtain the needed data. Many archaeologists develop explicit research designs
prior to their work. The development of a research design forces them to focus on what
they are going to do, what they are really looking for (you generally will not find what you
C H A P T E R 3 : T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F C O N T E M P O R A RY A R C H A E O L O G Y 61
t a b l e 3 . 1
Constructing a Research Design
AN EXAMPLE: THE RESEARCH DESIGN FOR THE
GENERAL STEP LAKE TULARE PROJECT, CSU BAKERSFIELD, 2001
1. Formulate a general It is known that Paleoindian people occupied North America
hypothesis from existing by at least 12,000 years ago and that some of these early
data. sites have been found on the shorelines of Pleistocene lakes,
including Lake Tulare. Thus, it is expected that Paleoindian
sites will be present around Pleistocene Lake Tulare in cen-
2. Explain the background of In the 1950s, a Paleoindian site was discovered at Lake
the hypothesis. Tulare, and some Clovis points were found. In the 1990s,
more material was found in the same vicinity, suggesting a
substantial Paleoindian occupation of the region. Unfortu-
nately, all of the known sites have been damaged by agricul-
ture and vandals.
3. Explain the theoretical A standard scientific, processual, materialist approach.
approach to be used.
4. Detail the specific Although the Paleoindian sites exposed on the present surface
hypotheses derived from are damaged, it is possible that some Paleoindian sites lie
the general hypothesis. buried beneath alluvium deposited in recent times. If so, these
sites may be undamaged and could contain a detailed record
of human occupation of the region during the Pleistocene.
5. List and explain the kinds of To locate buried sites, it will be necessary to determine
data needed to address the where any buried shorelines may be. If such sites are found,
hypothesis. their age will have to be determined.
6. State the research methods To locate buried shorelines, GIS software will be used to
to be employed in seeking analyze the elevation, slope, and angles of the terrain from
the data to address the existing map data to tease out possible locations of buried
hypothesis. fossil shorelines. Backhoe trenches will be excavated at
promising locations with the hope of finding buried sites.
Archaeological materials exposed in the trenches will be
collected for later analysis.
7. Detail the methods to be If found, artifacts will be examined to determine whether
used to analyze the data. they are Paleoindian in age. If possible, materials suitable for
dating (e.g., organic material for radiocarbon dating) will be
obtained and processed. Depending on the nature of the
sites found, new questions and a new research design for
excavation will be generated.
62 PA R T I : W H AT I S A R C H A E O L O G Y ? www.ablongman.com/sutton
are not looking for), and the best way to recover the data they need. A written research de-
sign also allows other archaeologists to review the plan and to provide suggestions, ideas,
and criticisms so as to strengthen it.
Actual conditions in the field may force changes in a research design. For example, if
the research design calls for an investigation of architecture and a cemetery is discovered
during the work, a rapid change in the research design may be necessary. Thus, a research
design must remain flexible to adjust to changing field conditions. Also, the researcher has
to be prepared to revise or reject hypotheses if they are not supported by the available data,
and to reformulate the research design for additional work.
The Rise of Middle-Range Theory
Scientific archaeologists maintained that the past is past and that any evaluation of a dy-
namic past can be made only through the analysis of a static record in the present. No “di-
rect” reading of the past is possible. It is possible to gain only an “indirect” understanding
through the application of science in the formulation of hypotheses and models to be tested
against archaeological data. Thus, it is necessary to link the material archaeological record
to past human behavior. This linkage is accomplished through the application of logic, anal-
ogy, and theory, collectively called middle-range theory (Schiffer 1995; Tschauner 1996).
The central element of middle range theory is the use of analogy, an argument that
if two things are similar in some aspects, they will be similar in others. A great deal of the
reasoning employed in archaeology is based on analogy. Conclusions reached through the
use of analogy, however, are hypotheses and may be incorrect. Thus, the scientific ar-
chaeologist continually tests and refines hypotheses and models generated by analogy.
Because the past is not directly observable in the present, processual archaeologists
seek to generate or observe contemporary situations that they can study and link to the
past. This work involves learning how the archaeological record formed and trying to un-
derstand how past human behavior created a material record. Much of middle range the-
ory has been developed through the use of ethnographic analogy, ethnoarchaeology, and
ETHNOGRAPHIC ANALOGY Over the last several hundred years, anthropologists and oth-
ers have gathered a great deal of information about living societies all over the world. De-
tailed information exists about the organizations, technologies, practices, social behaviors,
and many other aspects of a large number of extant cultures. Through the use of ethno-
graphic analogy, archaeologists employ information about living cultures to help con-
struct models of past cultures.
For example, technological adaptations of traditional seminomadic desert-dwelling
peoples today include the construction of wells and cisterns for locating and storing wa-
ter near seasonal settlements and along trade routes. The discovery of an ancient system
of wells and cisterns might lead an archaeologist to hypothesize that the people who had
constructed the system had semipermanent settlements and were engaged in trade with
neighboring groups and that their material culture was based on adaptations to a gener-
ally arid environment. Other findings then would either support these hypotheses or sug-
gest alternative explanations.
C H A P T E R 3 : T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F C O N T E M P O R A RY A R C H A E O L O G Y 63
It is important to remember, however, that living cultures are not past cultures; they
are different, living in different circumstances, with different people and histories (Testart
1988:1; also see Headland and Reid 1989:49–51). The behaviors and practices of contem-
porary cultures can be used only to suggest hypotheses about the past, hypotheses that
must be tested. If archaeologists keep this point in mind, ethnographic analogy can be a
ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY Two major trends in archaeology today are based on the concept
of ethnographic analogy: ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology. Ethnoarchae-
ology is the archaeological analysis of living peoples to gain insight into peoples of the past
(Kramer 1979; O’Connell 1995; Longacre and Skibo 1994). In this approach, an archaeol-
ogist lives with a contemporary group and directly observes their behavior and the result-
ing material record of that behavior to learn through observation how the people’s
behavior formed the material record observed (Highlight 3.1). For example, an archaeol-
ogist might watch how a hunt is conducted, how game is butchered, what tools are used,
which parts of the animal were eaten and which discarded, where debris is thrown, how de-
bris becomes dispersed, and other behaviors. The archaeologist would carefully record the
patterns of material remains and correlate them to the behaviors that resulted in them be-
ing formed. If similar patterns of material remains were found in a site, the archaeologist
could develop working hypotheses that similar behaviors may have been practiced. The
bulk of ethnoarchaeological research has been conducted among hunter-gatherer groups,
but some work has been done with pastoralists.
Between 1969 and 1973, archaeologist Lewis Binford (Binford 1978) spent time liv-
ing with the Nunamuit Eskimo in Alaska, accompanying them on hunting trips and other
activities. He observed and recorded how their activities resulted in a material record and
how that record was patterned. He saw how animals were killed and butchered, where the
tools were dropped, where the bones were tossed, how the small camps were organized,
how the logistics worked, and the like. He observed contemporary hunter-gatherers so
that he could gain an understanding of how ancient hunter-gatherers may have operated.
Using the Nunamuit information as a basis, Binford later constructed models on how the
Neanderthal hunters of the Middle Paleolithic of France may have operated.
Ethnoarchaeological work is not limited to other cultures. Since 1971, William Rathje
of the University of Arizona has been studying the modern garbage of Tucson for clues to
past human behavior, an example of “applied archaeology” (Rathje et al. 1992; Rathje and
Murphy 2001). Rathje and his crew collected garbage directly from households and had
the residents fill out questionnaires regarding what (e.g., food and other materials) they
had consumed. The garbage record was then compared to the written records to deter-
mine the actual behavior of the people—comparing what they said to what they actually
did. Rathje was hired by various companies, such as Kentucky Fried Chicken, to learn what
consumers were discarding, how packaging might be improved, and other information
that might improve performance.
EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY Experimental archaeology attempts to understand past
cultural processes through the controlled and directed replication of artifacts and features
(Coles 1973). Experiments are conducted with ancient materials and techniques to discover
64 PA R T I : W H AT I S A R C H A E O L O G Y ? www.ablongman.com/sutton
HIGHLIGHT 3 . 1
Ethnoarchaeology among the Aka of Central Africa
Archaeologists interested in past diet often study the cooked and eaten. Differences in these behaviors will
food remains (animal bones and plant parts) in ar- result in different patterns of bone refuse in a site.
chaeological sites to gain insight into what people ate However, it is known that bones in a site are dis-
and how they obtained their food. For example, ar- turbed, typically by domestic dogs who scavenge the
chaeologists want to know what animals were hunted, bones, chew on them, and drag them away to cache
how they were processed, what technology was used, them. Thus, it is logical to assume that some of the
what parts were discarded, and what parts were bone distribution patterns seen in archaeological sites
may have more to do with dogs than with people.
What does the original human pattern look like, and
how does dog behavior alter that pattern?
To investigate these questions, Jean Hudson of the
University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, traveled to cen-
tral Africa (Hudson 1990, 1993) to study the Aka. The
Aka are a group of contemporary hunter-gatherers liv-
ing in the Ituri Forest, and they make their living partly
by hunting the game in the forest.
After the Aka abandoned a camp, Hudson exca-
vated it as if it were an archaeological site, recording
the size, damage to, and location of all of the bones
found. Through this analysis, she was able to determine
how dogs damage and redistribute animal bone in an
Aka camp, and she used those data to develop a
model of bone distribution in prehistoric camps. She
found that the damage done to the bones by dogs did
not conceal the numbers of animals present or their
relative importance in the Aka diet; this finding sug-
gested that the same may be true in prehistoric sites
CRITICALT H I N K I N G QUESTIONS
Jean Hudson lived with the Aka people specifically 1. How was Hudson able to develop a model of
to observe their food-getting activities. What ani- bone distribution in a prehistoric camp by study-
mals did they hunt, how did they butcher and cook ing living hunter-gatherers?
game, where did they discard the bones, and how 2. What other things could Hudson learn about the
did dogs scatter the bones? past by living with the Aka?
C H A P T E R 3 : T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F C O N T E M P O R A RY A R C H A E O L O G Y 65
Believing that wasteful practices and lack of resource conservation through recycling
contributed to the decline of many societies of the past, such as the ancient Maya,
William Rathje excavated into modern landfills. He wanted to discover patterns and
trends in what people discard and how garbage degrades in a landfill. He also wanted
to investigate the effectiveness of landfills and issues of pollution.
how and why things might have been done in the past. It is natural to ask “How did they do
that?” when examining past material, whether a pyramid or a projectile point. In some cases,
ethnographic analogy can provide a starting point for investigation; in other cases, there is lit-
tle information available to form a hypothesis. One way to approach the problem is through
experimentation, working with the material until the same result or form is achieved.
Most experiments so far have involved the replication, or, in some cases, the actual use
of flaked stone tools, but experimental archaeology can be used to investigate many other
things. You could grind maize on milling stones to see what kind of wear patterns were
produced on the stones and then compare the results with artifacts from archaeological
sites. You could fire ceramic vessels at different temperatures to determine which tech-
nique matches the patterns seen in archaeological ceramics. Archaeologists have used the
tools available to the ancient Egyptians to cut the kind of stone block used in the pyra-
mids, to see how long it took and to develop an estimate of the time and labor needed to
construct a pyramid. Archaeologists have built replicas of reed boats to see how they may
have been used for transport. To understand how people may have butchered a mammoth
12,000 years ago, you could use replicated stone tools to butcher a modern elephant.
Some experiments involve creating an artificial (experimental) archaeological site and
66 PA R T I : W H AT I S A R C H A E O L O G Y ? www.ablongman.com/sutton
To learn how much time and effort were re-
quired to make a stone mortar (a bowl-shaped
object in which materials are crushed with the
aid of a pestle), Richard Osborne of Porterville
College, California, undertook an experiment to
manufacture one (Osborne 1998). He took a
small, flat granite boulder and used hand-size
quartzite rocks with pointed ends to hammer
out a depression (the mortar cup) into the gran-
ite rock. Osborne found it took eight hours
(67,200 strikes with the stone hammer) to form
a depression 11 centimeters in diameter and 3.5
centimeters deep. Clearly, past people put a
great deal of effort into making their mortars.
(Photo courtesy of Richard H. Osborne.)
then observing effects, such as the effects of rain
and rodents on the site over time.
Experiments provide clues to ancient tech-
nology, labor, effort, engineering, understand-
ing of math and physics, and other information
(Highlight 3.2). However, experimental archae-
ology demonstrates only that something could have been done in a particular way, not that
it was done that way, for there may be other ways to achieve the same result.
Cultural Materialism and Human Ecology
A common approach of processual archaeology is the use of cultural materialism, a the-
oretical framework based on the idea that “human social life is a response to the practical
problems of earthly existence” (Harris 1979:ix). Using this approach, an archaeologist can
investigate with empirical data very basic and practical research questions centering on
technology, economy (e.g., food), environment, and population. Cultural materialism has
an unwavering commitment to the rules of Western science.
The cultural materialist approach begins with the idea (called techno-environmental
materialism) that all cultural institutions can be explained by direct material payoff. To ex-
plain some cultural phenomenon, the researcher begins by looking for a specific direct
material payoff, such as food. If the first payoff alone proves inadequate as an explanation,
another material payoff, such as shelter, is considered and perhaps added to the first. If all
material payoffs are eliminated or are inadequate as explanations, then research would
move outside the realm of direct material payoffs and investigate psychological or socio-
logical factors. Because many archaeological data are themselves material (e.g., tools, food
residues, shelter foundations), materialism has proved an exceedingly useful research ap-
proach and is the basis of much processual archaeology.
The archaeological focus on dietary analysis offers a case in point. A great deal of what
many archaeologists currently do is geared to understanding past diet through the analy-
C H A P T E R 3 : T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F C O N T E M P O R A RY A R C H A E O L O G Y 67
HIGHLIGHT 3 . 2
Quarrying Limestone Blocks in the Yucatán
Many of the large buildings in the ancient Maya cities
in Central America were constructed from limestone
blocks. It was estimated (Adams 1991) that some 70
million cubic feet of cut blocks and fill were needed to
construct the Danta Complex, a group of buildings and
a platform at the Preclassic Maya city of El Mirador,
Guatemala. It was previously not known how these
blocks and fill were quarried, with what tools, how they
were transported and placed in the buildings, how the
mortar and stucco (made from the same limestone)
were made, or how much time and effort it all in-
volved. It was important to know how much labor and
time were needed so as to be able to estimate the la-
bor force, the overall population of the area, the re-
sources Maya society committed to the project, and
how the project may have impacted the environment. An experimentally quarried limestone block is re-
James C. Woods and Gene L. Titmus of the Her- moved from the quarry at the Maya site of Nakbe,
rett Museum in Idaho undertook to investigate these Guatemala. (Photo courtesy of James C. Woods.)
issues (Woods and Titmus 1996). Working with the
RAINPEG (Regional Archaeological Investigations in as the prehistoric examples, suggesting that they had
the Northern Petén, Guatemala) Project, they traveled been used in a similar manner.
to Nakbe, a Maya city located a few miles from El Mi- Woods and Titmus found that a team of eight men
rador, to locate and excavate quarries where the lime- could cut, remove, and shape four large limestone
stone blocks had been cut and examine the quarry blocks in a day, and this information was used to cal-
debris. They found a variety of broken flaked stone bi- culate the time needed to provide materials for the
faces associated with the ancient quarries, and they large Maya buildings like those at El Mirador and Nakbe.
concluded that those bifaces may have been used to Woods and Titmus calculated that a force of less than
cut and shape the limestone blocks. Woods and Tit- a thousand workers working half of each year over a
mus replicated numerous bifaces, then hafted them in period of four centuries could have been sufficient to
different ways to see what would work. They began to provide the building materials for the Danta Complex.
cut limestone blocks themselves. They found that bi- Some of the general quarry debris was used as fill; the
faces hafted on wooden shafts, like a spear, could be rest was processed into mortar and stucco.
used to cut through the limestone rather easily. They Woods and Titmus also noted that some of the
also found that the resulting toolmarks in their exper- quarries were located very near causeways (roads)
imental limestone quarry matched those in the an- that led to the city, making transport of the blocks eas-
cient quarries. The replica bifaces that were broken ier than had been first thought. The experimental work
during the experiment had the same breakage patterns at Nakbe provides valuable information regarding the
68 PA R T I : W H AT I S A R C H A E O L O G Y ? www.ablongman.com/sutton
HIGHLIGHT 3 . 2 continued
time and effort required to build ancient Maya cities 2. What was the research design? What hypothe-
and gives us a glimpse at the ancient Maya themselves. ses and propositions were being tested?
3. What are the most likely explanations of how ar-
CRITICALT H I N K I N G QUESTIONS chitectural monuments were built in the ancient
1. How was the Woods and Titmus study an ex- world?
ample of experimental archaeology?
sis of food remains found in sites. Clearly, people must first meet some sort of minimum
dietary requirements before they can do anything else, so an investigation into diet reflects
a materialist approach. However, understanding diet is only a start in the task of under-
standing cultural systems.
Human ecology is the study of how humans adapt to their environment, and the study
of human ecology is basically both evolutionary and materialist. As with all organisms,
humans must adapt to changing environments and do so as individuals and populations
(biological adaptation) and as cultural groups with shared behaviors (cultural ecology).
Cultural behavior is the primary mechanism of adaptation, and successful adaptation de-
pends on finding workable solutions to environmental challenges. Some solutions are very
good, others adequate, and still others poor. Archaeologists want to determine what a cul-
ture did to adapt to its environment and whether their solutions worked.
Evolutionary ecology is one of the main approaches of human ecology. In evolution-
ary ecology, the concepts of adaptation and selection are used in the analysis of cultures.
In natural selection, the environment provides a background in which a species must adapt
to survive. Those traits of a species that are deleterious make adaptation more difficult, and
there is pressure against such traits. For example, slow deer are easier for wolves to catch;
thus, slowness in deer is deleterious, and slow deer would be selected against (eaten by
wolves). If all the deer were slow, they would all get eaten and deer would go extinct.
Cultures can be viewed in the same manner, having traits that may or may not be
adaptive to the environment. Depending on the selective pressures, some traits would be
selected against, and if the trait in question were critical, the culture might go extinct. For
it to survive, it would have to alter its deleterious traits, replacing them with adaptive traits.
In studying past human ecology, archaeologists construct models of both the cultural
group in question and the environment in which the people lived. Environmental condi-
tions are often the starting point for determining how the technology and organization of
the culture contribute to the group’s adaptation.
There is now an approach in archaeology, called evolutionary or selectionist archaeol-
ogy, that studies the past from the perspective of Darwinian evolution (Maschner 1996;
O’Brien 1996b). This evolutionary approach developed as a central tenet of processual ar-
chaeology but for a variety of reasons was not pursued until fairly recently (O’Brien
1996a). The application of evolutionary theory to understanding past cultural systems
may be just beginning.
C H A P T E R 3 : T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F C O N T E M P O R A RY A R C H A E O L O G Y 69
Processualism, the “New Archaeology,” began with great fanfare and promise. In the inter-
vening 40 years, the approach has not fulfilled the expectation that all questions of the past
would be answered. To some, this suggested that processualism itself was flawed, while to oth-
ers, it suggested that the initial expectations were far too ambitious. Critics of processualism
claimed that science was too subjective and dehumanizing to be used to analyze the past. Fur-
ther, it was suggested that scientific archaeology viewed the past from a narrow, capitalist,
male, Western perspective and was not capable of learning about the past of other peoples.
Alternatively, one could view the processual approach, with its emphasis on science
and technology, as a relatively new undertaking. From that perspective, processual ar-
chaeology is still “working out the bugs” and still retains great promise. As the kinds and
quantity of information generated from the archaeological record increase, scientific ar-
chaeology should hit its stride.
Archaeology as Narrative
By the 1980s, some archaeologists were impatient with the apparent lack of results
coming from processual archaeology. A goal of processual archaeology was to discover
universal laws of human behavior, but none had been discovered in some 20 years of work.
This criticism of scientific archaeology came at a time when all of science, indeed the en-
tire modern world, was being questioned. The “postmodernists” were critical of all mod-
ern things and argued that science itself was flawed. Postmodernism took a very subjective
and anti-scientific stance in opposition to the objectivism of the modern world.
Some archaeologists, most notably Ian Hodder (e.g., Hodder 1991, 1999; also see
Shanks and Tilley 1987), adopted this general postmodern view and began to question sci-
entific archaeology. A number of scholars, mostly from Britain, argued that the past was
subjective, not objective as the processualists insisted, and that there was no single truth
of the past, only narrative interpretations of what the interpreter (the archaeologist)
wanted to see. Thus, they argued, all pasts are valid. This general approach came to be
called postprocessual archaeology, and archaeological interpretations became narratives,
stories told by the archaeologist about the past.
The postprocessualists also seized on the criticism that scientific archaeology was an
“agent of colonialism” and was viewing the past from a narrow, capitalist, male, Western
perspective. They argued that there are many possible interpretations of the past, depend-
ing on the angle from which one is looking, and that the voices of previously unconsidered
people and viewpoints must be added to the interpretations of the past. Postprocessualists
explicitly recognized and embraced issues that deal with inequality, domination, gender, mi-
norities, and the individual in the past. Marxist archaeology (McGuire 1992, 1993; Trigger
1993)—the interpretation of the past from a noncapitalist perspective of power, produc-
tion, control of resources, and the like—also developed from the postprocessualist climate.
Interestingly, the Marxist approach is similar to processualism in that it is materialist,
70 PA R T I : W H AT I S A R C H A E O L O G Y ? www.ablongman.com/sutton
evolutionary, and system oriented. Because of the political connotations of the term “Marx-
ist,” however, the Marxist approach has been largely snubbed by the processualists.
Many see postprocessualism as a paradigm shift, away from scientific archaeology and
toward a more “humanistic” perspective, democratizing the past. Others (e.g., Renfrew
1994:3–4) see postprocessualism as actually being antiprocessualist, dismissive of the
scientific approach, and advocating a return to an intellectually simpler time. However,
even the critics of postprocessualism acknowledge its contribution in focusing attention
on issues not commonly pursued by processualists. Once these issues are recognized, ex-
ploration into them can begin, and the voices of formerly unconsidered people can be
sought and added to the understanding of the past.
Engendering the Past
Until fairly recently, and with some notable exceptions, the field of archaeology was dom-
inated by men. Thus, much archaeological excavation and interpretation emphasized the
role of men in past societies. The result was in a depiction of a male-dominated past in
which the roles, influences, and contributions of children (Kamp 2001) and women often
were downplayed or ignored. In the last few decades, as more women became involved in
archaeology, the distinct emphasis on males has dramatically shifted, and a great deal
more work is being conducted on the roles of women and children in the past.
To research sex roles, one has to understand the difference between sex and gender.
In anthropology, sex is a biological classification: individuals are males, females, or her-
maphrodites (persons with both male and female sex organs). Gender, however, is a cul-
turally constructed category and is defined by the role behavior that a person is expected
to have in the culture, regardless of sex. Although transvestites and homosexuals, for ex-
ample, existed in the past and are reflected in the archaeological record, genders other than
male and female have been largely invisible, perhaps because archaeologists rarely look for
evidence of their existence.
Archaeologists have become aware of a gender bias in their interpretation of the ar-
chaeological record. Activities identified at a site might be assigned to males or females,
often by means of ethnographic analogy. However, these assignments are just working hy-
potheses and must be tested. As part of this testing, archaeologists have to make models
describing gender roles and how they might be seen archaeologically. The power and sta-
tus of females in past societies, for example, could be reflected in mortuary patterns, ar-
tifact types and distributions, and rock art (Nelson 1997). Since the 1980s, considerable
work has been conducted to explore the archaeology of gender (e.g., Claassen 2002; Con-
key and Spector 1984; Ehrenberg 1989; Gero and Conkey 1991; Scott 1994; Wright 1996;
Nelson 1997; Schmidt and Voss 2000).
Postprocessualism has generally been seen as a new way of looking at the past, but there are
a number of important criticisms. Some describe postprocessualism as more interested in
modern political ideology than in discovering the past (e.g., Kuznar 1997:172). These crit-
ics argue that postprocessualists seek to interpret the past on the basis of current social con-
C H A P T E R 3 : T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F C O N T E M P O R A RY A R C H A E O L O G Y 71
texts, imputing the problems of today, such as inequality and racism, to the past and using
these interpretations of the past to influence sociopolitical situations of the present. Post-
processualists counter that traditional (processual) archaeology is part of a “conspiracy” to
dehumanize and suppress non-European peoples and so should not be believed.
Some of the postprocessual arguments are difficult to accept. For example, the argu-
ment that science is dehumanizing and cannot be used to analyze humans implies that hu-
mans are above nature and so somehow above analysis. Yet, after declaring that humans
cannot be analyzed, postprocessualists proceed to analyze them. In another seeming con-
tradiction, postprocessual archaeologists employ the same objective analytical techniques
of the scientific archaeology they reject (VanPool and VanPool 1999). Next, the post-
processualists claim that all pasts are equal and valid, but they then reject some pasts in
favor of others. Lastly, it could be argued (e.g., VanPool and VanPool 1999) that post-
processualism is a collection of perspectives added on to existing archaeology rather than
a separate, unified school of thought.
Although it is clearly evident that there are many interpretations of the past (seeing
that there are many different people interpreting it), it is the position of the authors of this
book that an objective and knowable past does exist. We believe that the voices added by
the postprocessual approach are objective, even if objectivity is difficult to discern. Science
and scientific archaeology may be practiced by subjective humans, but as a discipline, sci-
ence is self-correcting and ultimately objective. We further believe that a careful reading
of the postprocessual approach shows that the only fundamental difference from proces-
sual archaeology (Kuznar 1997:159–172; VanPool and VanPool 1999, 2001) is in its use as
social commentary, although there is significant disagreement on this point (e.g., Hodder
1999; Arnold and Wilkens 2001; Hutson 2001).
Whatever the criticisms of postprocessualism, and whether or not it represents a fun-
damental change in the way archaeology is done, it has forced archaeology to expand its
consideration of the past to include issues of gender, social stratification, minorities, sup-
pressed peoples, ideologies, and the like. In addition, there has been a considerable in-
crease in the development and discussion of archaeological theory. All of this can only
enhance our understanding of the past (Preucel 1995).
The practice of contemporary archaeology incorporates all three of the major para-
digms: history, science (processualism), and humanism (postprocessualism). None of
these approaches precludes the application or pursuit of the others; in fact, together they
combine to form a synergistic approach to understanding the past. It is probably true that
pure scientific archaeology has tended to be a bit dehumanizing, emphasizing cultures,
systems, structures, and change, and rarely looking at the human side of the past, such as
issues of social roles or power. In this regard, the postprocessual critique has been useful,
if for no other reason than forcing traditional archaeology to broaden its consideration of
the past. Whatever the approach, all archaeologists employ the concepts of science and sci-
entific thought, and archaeology at its core, remains a science.
72 PA R T I : W H AT I S A R C H A E O L O G Y ? www.ablongman.com/sutton
Contemporary archaeology is a very sophisticated multidisciplinary approach in which
the expertise of many professionals is employed to address questions of the past. Researchers
rarely work alone and frequently rely heavily on the expertise of others. In the past, archae-
ology may have been an individual pursuit, but it is very much a team effort today.
As you read in Chapter 1, much of the archaeology done today falls under the gen-
eral heading of public archaeology or cultural resource management. The majority of
practicing archaeologists are engaged in the identification, preservation, management,
and interpretation of archaeological sites and areas. However, none of this work could be
accomplished without the basic understanding of the research results and values of the
sites, and research remains the core aspect of archaeology.
Another important aspect of contemporary archaeology is the education of the pub-
lic about the past and about the value of archaeological resources. Considerable effort is
being made, with secondary education programs being established in some areas, the
presence of many active nonprofessional societies, the establishment of parks and mon-
uments for archaeological sites, and the proliferation of archaeological education pro-
grams on television. Still, much more needs to be done.
Archaeology is a young discipline with a very bright future. At various times, it has
been claimed that we have found all there is to find and that we know all there is to know,
but the truth is that we have only scratched the surface. There is still so very much to learn,
and new and spectacular finds are still common, such as the “Iceman” (Fowler 2000), ex-
tensive new cemeteries in Egypt with thousands of mummies (Hawass 2000), the Qin
terra-cotta army in Shaanxi province in China (Ch’in Ping 1996; Wenli 1996), Cleopatra’s
Palace submerged in the harbor of Alexandria (La Riche 1996; Goddio et al. 1998; Fore-
man 1999), and the red-headed mummies of the Tarim Basin in western China (Mair
1995a; Mallory and Mair 2000; Barber 1999). The list could go on. In addition to new dis-
coveries, many old mysteries remain. Some ancient writing is still undeciphered; some civ-
ilizations, such as the Oxus civilization in central Asia, are still virtually unknown; and
many fundamental questions are still unanswered, such as the date of initial colonization
of the Americas and why and under what circumstances agriculture was adopted. We are
also just beginning to learn about ordinary people in the past.
As you read at the beginning of this chapter, new techniques of analysis and interpre-
tation are constantly expanding our understanding of the past. For example, the ability to
analyze ancient DNA permits the reconstruction of family trees, from the pharaohs to hu-
mans in general, an achievement undreamed of only a few years before. Advances in med-
ical imaging have permitted the examination of mummies and other materials in
unprecedented detail without damaging them. Various other techniques of noninvasive
and nondestructive investigation, such as ground-penetrating radar, are now beginning to
be employed. As the power of computers increases, archaeologists will be able to use vir-
tual reality to reconstruct ancient sites, be able to “walk” through them, and gain insights
by “being there.” As we learn new things, our ability to learn increases, and we are on the
verge of an explosion in archaeological knowledge. In addition, if there is life on other plan-
ets, we will want to know something of their history and prehistory as well (Highlight 3.3).
In fact, archaeological sites now exist on our own Moon, and Tranquility Base, the first
Apollo landing site, has been nominated to the National Register of Historic Places.
C H A P T E R 3 : T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F C O N T E M P O R A RY A R C H A E O L O G Y 73
HIGHLIGHT 3 . 3
In 1890, the Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli
noticed linear features on Mars and called them
“channels”—canali in Italian. The American press ex-
citedly announced that “canals” had been discovered
on Mars, and an amateur American astronomer, Per-
cival Lowell, claimed that these structures were the
work of intelligent beings who had built a vast system
of canals to move water about the surface of their dy-
ing planet. The polar ice caps were known to grow and
shrink with the seasons, and large dark areas in the
mid-latitudes were also thought to grow and shrink, as
might be expected of agricultural fields. Lowell The field of exoarchaeology, the study of past cul-
mapped the “canals” and set out to prove the exis- tures on other worlds, does not formally exist be-
cause no exocultures are known, although humans
tence of the Martian civilization (Lowell 1906).
created some archaeological sites on the Moon
Many people believed Lowell, and there was a
during the Apollo program. The archaeology of
great deal of speculation about the nature of the Mar- other planets is a common theme in science fic-
tians, their culture, cities, engineering, and their efforts tion, such as Ray Bradbury’s stories about Mars
to survive their deteriorating climate. This work in- and Stanley Kubrick’s film 2001, based on a novel
spired H. G. Wells to write War of the Worlds and by Arthur C. Clarke.
Edgar Rice Burroughs to write a series of books about
the adventures of an Earth man, John Carter, on Mars.
It was eventually realized that the Martian canals were branch). There is speculation about the origin, evolu-
natural features, such as canyons, and that no Martian tion, and nature of other life-forms throughout the uni-
civilization existed, but the study of exoarchaeology verse, and this work is ongoing, some using computers
was born. to model what extraterrestrial life might look like. If
The archaeology of other worlds is a common and when cultures on other planets are discovered,
theme in science fiction. The television series Star Trek the field of exoarchaeology will be reborn. When
featured a number of episodes dealing with archaeol- other worlds discover us, our past will become their
ogy. In addition, the starship Enterprise had a ship’s exoarchaeology.
archaeologist on the crew, and Captain Picard stud-
CRITICALT H I N K I N G QUESTIONS
ied archaeology and gave papers at archaeological
meetings. 1. What assumptions underlie exoarchaeology?
The lack of knowledge about other worlds has How might they differ from those held in “regu-
not deterred the creation of other fields of study lar” archaeology?
about other worlds. Work on exobiology and ex- 2. What special challenges and rewards do you
opaleontology has begun (NASA has an exobiology think exoarchaeologists of the future could face?
74 PA R T I : W H AT I S A R C H A E O L O G Y ? www.ablongman.com/sutton
One of the new computer-based technologies used in archaeology is Geographic In-
formation Systems (GIS) software to analyze spatially based information, such as sites and
other archaeological data (Kvamme 1989; Limp 2000; Wescott and Brandon 2000). Using
GIS, archaeologists can digitally map classes of information in a series of separate maps,
called layers, that can be electronically overlaid on each other to show relationships. Un-
wanted or unrelated layers can be dropped, thus limiting the quantity of information to
be examined at any one time. For example, all sites could be on one layer, all hydrological
data on another, and soil types on a third. The relationship of the sites to the water sources
could be seen and then compared to soil types. Information on current features (such
as towns, roads, and farms) that are not archaeologically germane could be suppressed,
making relationships between archaeological materials and geographic features more
visible. A series of vegetation layers, each dating from a different time period, might be
imposed over the layer containing site information, giving the analyst an idea of how
changing environments may have affected site types and locations.
Also, entire maps and their features can be digitized and viewed in virtual 3-D
images (Gillings et al. 1999). This perspective has an advantage over the traditional two-
dimensional view of most maps and gives the archaeologist an opportunity to see differ-
ences in the topography and elevation between sites. Used in conjunction with GIS, this
can be a powerful tool. If Global Positioning System (GPS) is used to map the site loca-
tions, it is more precise and even more useful. The utility of GIS is not limited to large-
scale phenomena; the same principles can be applied to mapping and analyzing materials
found within a site.
With some GIS programs, archaeologists can conduct a statistical analysis of rela-
tionships, using existing information to model the probabilities that certain sites would
be located in certain environments. Using such information, models to predict site loca-
tions can be made and tested, with important applications to both research and cultural
resource management (Wescott and Brandon 2000). Further, GIS has a major practical
application of managing archaeological data that exist in the form of site records and ex-
cavation reports (Limp 2000).
Careers in Archaeology
When first meeting an archaeologist, many people say, “Oh, I always wanted to be an
archaeologist but I heard there were no jobs.” This may have been generally true at one
time, but since the 1980s, there has been a greatly increasing demand for archaeologists,
although not all in well-paid positions (Patterson 1999). This demand has been fueled by
the growing requirements to conduct environmental reviews for development and by the
need for governments to manage the archaeological resources on their lands. Today, as you
can see in Figure 3.2, there are many jobs available in archaeology, many for good pay, and
archaeology is a great career choice.
Opportunities in archaeology at the undergraduate level include field classes, labora-
tory classes, internships, and volunteer projects. It is also important to attend regional and
C H A P T E R 3 : T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F C O N T E M P O R A RY A R C H A E O L O G Y 75
Career General Duties Neededa Opportunities Range
Teacher/Professor Teaching, research, and M.A. for Relatively few jobs, $30,000 to
administration community but very good $90,000+ plus
colleges, Ph.D. people can get them benefits
Museum Specialist Collections B.A. to Ph.D., Relatively few jobs $30,000 to
management, research, depending on $80,000 plus
display preparation position benefits
Contract Project planning and B.A. to Ph.D., Some higher-level $30,000 to
Archaeologist supervision, report depending on jobs with private $80,000+ plus
writing position companies, many benefits
Cultural Resource Compliance, some Some B.A.’s but Many jobs with $40,000 to
Manager fieldwork, contract usually an M.A. national or regional $70,000 plus
writing government benefits
General Labor Survey, excavation, and Some college Many short-term $6.00 to
(field and cataloging and appropriate jobs with private $15.00/hr.
laboratory) experience companies
f i g u r e 3 . 2
Careers in Archaeology
aPh.D. = doctorate degree; M.A. = master’s degree; B.A. = bachelor’s degree.
national archaeology meetings to learn things, meet people, and develop networks lead-
ing to future opportunities. There are jobs in archaeology for people without a college de-
gree, but pay, benefits, and career advancement are very limited. Thus, for most
archaeological careers, a college degree is required. Jobs include teaching at the college or
university level or working in a museum, each of which entails some research and ad-
ministration. Further, many private companies now exist to provide archaeological con-
sulting services, and many opportunities are available with such firms, or you could start
your own! Finally, national or regional government agencies now employ many archae-
ologists to manage the archaeological resources under their control.
76 PA R T I : W H AT I S A R C H A E O L O G Y ? www.ablongman.com/sutton
C O N T E N T S E L E C T
Search articles in the ContentSelect database using the key words processual approach and
postprocessual approach, and compare and contrast these theorectical orientations in ar-
chaeology. Where are the two approaches similar and different? What do you see as the
chief issues in this debate?
World War II interrupted most archaeological research, and the deaths of some ar-
chaeologists in that conflict set back the field. However, after the war, a number of de-
velopments, most notably radiocarbon dating and the use of statistical analyses,
substantially changed what archaeologists could learn. These new ways to look at the
past were an outgrowth of new technologies and set the stage for a paradigm shift. There
was a growing call for a more scientific archaeology, one that sought to learn about the
people of the past rather than just to elucidate their culture histories and chronologies.
This call was finally answered in the 1960s with the development of processual archae-
ology, which incorporated the scientific method into the discipline.
Processual archaeology incorporated research design, testable hypothe-
ses, and the search for higher-level understandings of human behavior,
and it used cultural materialism and human ecology as approaches.
Processual archaeology also incorporated middle-range theory, a general
approach by which static data could be related to a dynamic past through the use of anal-
ogy, including ethnographic analogy, ethnoarchaeology, and experimental archaeology.
By the early 1980s, some archaeologists had developed a dissatisfaction with proces-
sual archaeology, partly due to what was seen as a lack of results and partly to a general
dissatisfaction with science by society. From this base, the postprocessual archaeologists
argued that processual archaeology was too narrow, and they called for a less scientific ar-
chaeology with a greater emphasis on interpretation of previously unconsidered peoples
and on symbolic and cognitive aspects of the past. Many see postprocessual archaeology
as little more than an expanded version of processual archaeology, because the goals and
methods of the two approaches are essentially the same.
Archaeology today is a dynamic, sophisticated, multidisciplinary approach in which
the expertise of many professionals is employed to address questions about the past. Much
of the work done today is conducted as part of cultural resource management, and the
conservation of sites and public education are now integral parts of archaeology. Research
remains central to archaeology, for there is so very much more to learn and new materi-
als and insights into the past are being discovered all the time.
Opportunities for involvement and careers in archaeology are many. There is a real
need for well-trained, dedicated people in the discipline. Careers in teaching or with gov-
ernmental agencies or private firms are available and rewarding.
C H A P T E R 3 : T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F C O N T E M P O R A RY A R C H A E O L O G Y 77
Key Terms and Concepts
analogy, 62 experimental archaeology, 63 human ecology, 68
cultural materialism, 66 gender, 70 middle-range theory, 62
ethnoarchaeology, 63 Geographic Information postprocessual archaeology, 69
ethnographic analogy, 62 Systems (GIS), 74 processual archaeology, 60
evolutionary ecology, 68 Global Positioning System
exoarchaeology, 73 (GPS), 74
Selected Names and Places to Remember
Walter Taylor: anthropological archaeology, 58 James Woods and Gene Titmus: Maya
Lewis Binford: processual archaeology, 60 architecture, 67
William Rathje: garbage project, applied Ian Hodder: postprocessual archaeology, 69
Jean Hudson: ethnoarchaeology of the Aka
of central Africa, 64