Science, Tech, Math › Social Sciences Post-Processual Archaeology - What is Culture in Archaeology Anyway? The Radical Critique of the Processual Movement in Archaeology Share Flipboard Email Print Why is this 17th Century Edwardian Sundial Inscribed "'God is with us"?. Getty Images / Heritage Images Social Sciences Archaeology Basics Ancient Civilizations Excavations History of Animal and Plant Domestication Psychology Sociology Economics Environment Ergonomics Maritime By K. Kris Hirst Archaeology Expert M.A., Anthropology, University of Iowa B.Ed., Illinois State University K. Kris Hirst is an archaeologist with 30 years of field experience. Her work has appeared in scholarly publications such as Archaeology Online and Science. our editorial process Twitter Twitter K. Kris Hirst Updated June 05, 2019 Post-processual archaeology was a scientific movement in archaeological science that took place in the 1980s, and it was explicitly a critical reaction to the limitations of the previous movement, the 1960s' processual archaeology. In brief, processual archaeology strictly used the scientific method to identify the environmental factors that influenced past human behaviors. After two decades, many archaeologists who had practiced processual archaeology, or had been taught it during their formative years, recognized that processual archaeology failed when it attempted to explain variability in past human behavior. The post-processualists rejected the deterministic arguments and logical positivist methods as being too limited to encompass the wide variety of human motivations. A Radical Critique Most particularly, the "radical critique," as post-processualism was characterized in the 1980s, rejected the positivist search for general laws that govern behavior. Instead, practitioners suggested that archaeologists pay more attention to symbolic, structural, and Marxist perspectives. The symbolic and structural post-processualist archaeology had its birth primarily in England with the scholar Ian Hodder: some scholars such as Zbigniew Kobylinski and colleagues referred to it as the "Cambridge school." In texts such as Symbols in Action, Hodder argued that the word "culture" had become almost embarrassing to the positivists who were ignoring that facts that although material culture might reflect environmental adaptation, it also might reflect social variability. The functional, adaptive prism that the positivists used blinded them to the glaring blank spots in their research. The post-processualists said culture couldn't be reduced down to a set of outside forces like environmental change, but rather operates as a multi-varied organic response to everyday realities. Those realities are made up of a multitude of political, economic, and social forces that are, or at least seemed to be, specific to a specific group in a specific time and situation, and were nowhere near as predictable as the processualists assumed. Symbols and Symbolism At the same time, the post-processualist movement saw an incredible blossoming of ideas some of which were aligned with social deconstruction and post-modernism and grew out of the civil unrest in the west during the Vietnam war. Some archaeologists viewed the archaeological record as a text which needed to be decoded. Others focused on Marxist concerns about the relations of power and domination, not just in the archaeological record but in the archaeologist him or herself. Who should be able to tell the story of the past? Underlying all of that was also a movement to challenge the authority of the archaeologist and focus on identifying the biases which grew out of his or her gender or ethnic make-up. One of the beneficial outgrowths of the movement, then, was towards creating a more inclusive archaeology, an increase in the number of indigenous archaeologists in the world, as well as women, the LGBT community, and local and descendant communities. All of these brought a diversity of new considerations into a science that had been dominated by white, privileged, western outsider males. Critiques of the Critique The stunning breadth of ideas, however, became a problem. American archaeologists Timothy Earle and Robert Preucel argued that radical archaeology, without a focus on research methodology, was going nowhere. They called for a new behavioral archaeology, a method that combined the processual approach committed to explaining cultural evolution, but with a renewed focus on the individual. American archaeologist Alison Wylie said that post-processual ethnoarchaeology had to learn to combine the methodological excellence of the processualists with the ambition to explore how people in the past engaged with their material culture. And American Randall McGuire warned against post-processual archaeologists picking and choosing snippets from a wide range of social theories without developing a coherent, logically consistent theory. The Costs and Benefits The issues that were unearthed during the height of the post-processual movement are still not resolved, and few archaeologists would consider themselves post-processualists today. However, one outgrowth was the recognition that archaeology is a discipline that can use a contextual approach based on ethnographic studies to analyze sets of artifacts or symbols and look for evidence of belief systems. Objects may not simply be the residues of behavior, but instead, may have had a symbolic importance that archaeology can at least work at getting. And secondly, the emphasis on objectivity, or rather the recognition of subjectivity, has not subsided. Today archaeologists still think about and explain why they chose a specific method; create multiple sets of hypotheses to make sure they aren't being fooled by a pattern; and if possible, try to find a social relevance. After all, what is science if it's not applicable to the real world? Selected Sources Earle, Timothy K., et al. "Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique [and Comments and Reply]." Current Anthropology 28.4 (1987): 501–38. Print.Engelstad, Ericka. "Images of Power and Contradiction: Feminist Theory and Post-Processual Archaeology." Antiquity 65.248 (1991): 502-14. Print.Fewster, Kathryn J. "The Potential of Analogy in Post-Processual Archaeologies: A Case Study from Basimane Ward, Serowe, Botswana." The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 12.1 (2006): 61–87. Print.Fleming, Andrew. "Post-Processual Landscape Archaeology: A Critique." Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16.3 (2006): 267-80. Print.Kobylinski, Zbigniew, Jose Luis Lanata, and Hugo Daniel Yacobaccio. "On Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique." Current Anthropology 28.5 (1987): 680–82. Print.Mizoguchi, Koji. "A Future of Archaeology." Antiquity 89.343 (2015): 12-22. Print.Patterson, Thomas C. "History and the Post-Processual Archaeologies." Man 24.4 (1989): 555–66. Print.Wylie, Alison. "The Reaction against Analogy." Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8 (1985): 63–111. Print.Yoffee, Norman and Andrew Sherratt. "Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda?" Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.Yu, Pei-Lin, Matthew Schmader, and James G. Enloe. "'I’m the Oldest New Archaeologist in Town': The Intellectual Evolution of Lewis R. Binford." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 38 (2015): 2–7. Print.