Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T19:23:06.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ozymandias, King of Kings: Postprocessual Radical Archaeology as Critique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Richard A. Watson
Richard A. Watson*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Re-Constructing Archaeology (1987a) and Social Theory and Archaeology (1987b), Michael Shanks and Christopher Tilley argue for an antiscience radical archaeology as critique. They use deconstructionist sceptical arguments to conclude that there is no objective past and that our representations of the past are only texts that we produce on the basis of our sociopolitical standpoints. In effect, they contend that there is no objective world, that the world itself is a text that human beings write. This is a form of subjective idealism. Their critique is a nihilistic attack on all objective knowledge.

Résumé

Résumé

En Re-Constructing Archaeology (1987a) y en Social Theory and Archaeology (1987b), Michael Shanks y Christopher Tilley proponen, como crítica, una arqueología radical y anticientífica. Usando argumentos escépticos “de-construccionistas,” Shanks y Tilley concluyen que no existe unpasado objetivo y que nuestras representaciones del pasado son sólo textos que producimos en base a nuestra posición sociopolítica. De hecho, ellos afirman que no existe un mundo objetivo y que el mundo mismo es un texto escrito por los seres humanos. Este es un tipo de idealismo subjectivista. La crítica de Shanks y Tilley es un ataque nihilista a todo conocimiento objetivo.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , October 1990 , pp. 673 - 689
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Barnes, B. 1984 T. S. Kuhn and Social Science. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bergmann, G. 1954 The Metaphysics of Logical Positivism. Longmans, Green, London.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1986 In Pursuit of the Future. In American Archaeology Past and Future: A Celebration of the Society for American Archaeology, 1935-1985, edited by Meltzer, D. J., Fowler, D. D., and J. A. Sabloffi pp. 459–479. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1987 Data, Relativism, and Archaeological Science. Man (n. s.) 22: 391–404.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1989 Debating Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bloor, D. 1983 Wittgenstein and Social Theory. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1989 Nature's Capacities and their Measurements. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Chippendale, C. 1988 Ambition, Deference and Discrepancy: The Intellectual Place of Post-processual Archaeology. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Meeting of the Theoretical Archaeology Group, Sheffield, England.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. M. 1979 Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Collingwood, R. G. 1946 The Idea of History. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. 1976 Of Grammatology. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. 1978 Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourses of the Human Sciences. In Writing and Difference, by Derrida, J., pp. 278–293. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. 1981 Plato's Pharmacy. In Dissemination, by Derrida, J., pp. 61–172. Athlone Press, London.Google Scholar
Dilthey, W. 1954 [1907] The Essence of Philosophy. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Earle, T. K., and Preucel, R. W. 1987 Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique. Current Anthropology 28: 501-513, 525–538.Google Scholar
Evans, C. C. 1990 Strategies of Deconstruction: Derrida and The Myth of the Voice. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. 1975 Against Method. New Left Books, London.Google Scholar
Fritz, J., and Plog, F. 1970 The Nature of Archaeological Explanation. American Antiquity 35: 405–412.Google Scholar
Gellner, E. 1982 What is Structuralisme? In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: The Southampton Conference, edited by Renfrew, C., Rowlands, M. J., and Segraves, B. A., pp. 97–123. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Gibson, A. M. 1982 Beaker Domestic Sites: A Study of the Domestic Pottery of the Late Third and Early Second Millenia B. C. in the British Isles. BAR International Series 186. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. 1980 Theory and Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1959 The Function of General Laws in History. In Theories of History, edited by Gardner, P., pp. 344–356. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1965 Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1966 Philosophy of Natural Science. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1984 Archaeology in 1984. Antiquity 58: 25–32.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1987 Comments on Earle and Preucel. Current Anthropology 28: 516–517.Google Scholar
Hume, D. 1955 [1734] A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K. 1990 Metamind. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Leiber, J. 1988 “Cartesian” Linguistics? Philosophia 18: 309–346.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. G. 1973 Archaeology and Explanation. World Archaeology 4: 259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. 1964 Evolutionary Universals in Society. American Sociological Journal 29: 329–357.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C, Rowlands, M. J., and Segraves, B. A. (editors) 1982 Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: The Southampton Conference. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. 1979 Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Roth, P. 1987 Meaning and Method in the Social Sciences: A Case for Methodological Pluralism. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Google Scholar
Salmon, M. 1982 Philosophy and Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B. 1988 The Structure of Archaeological Theory. American Antiquity 33: 461–485.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. 1987a Re-Constructing Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. 1987b Social Theory and Archaeology. Polity Press, London.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. 1989 Archaeology into the 1990s. Norwegian Archaeological Review 22: 1–54.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. C. 1989 Laws and Symmetry. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Watson, P. J. 1990a The Razor's Edge: Symbolic-Structuralist Archeology and the Expansion of Archeological Inference. American Anthropologist 92: 613–629.Google Scholar
Watson, P. J. 1990b A Parochial Primer: The New Dissonance as Seen from the Midcontinental U. S. A. In Processualist vs. Post-Processualist Archaeology, edited by Preucel, R.. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, in press.Google Scholar
Watson, P. J., LeBlanc, S. A., and Redman, C. L. 1971 Explanation in Archeology: An Explicitly Scientific Approach. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Watson, P. J., LeBlanc, S. A., and Redman, C. L. 1974 The Covering Law Model in Archaeology: Practical Uses and Formal Interpretations. World Archaeology 6: 125–132.Google Scholar
Watson, P. J., LeBlanc, S. A., and Redman, C. L. 1984 Archeological Explanation: The Scientific Method in Archeology. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Watson, R. A. 1972 The “New Archeology” of the 1960s. Antiquity 46: 210–215.Google Scholar
Watson, R. A. 1976 Inference in Archaeology. American Antiquity 41: 58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, A. 1989 Archaeological Cables and Tacking: The Implications of Practices for Bernstein's “Options Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. ” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 19: 1–18.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1990 A Proliferation of New Archaeologies: Scepticism, Processualism, and Post-Processualism. Ms. in possession of author.Google Scholar