Editing Post-processual archaeology (section)

== Approach to archaeology ==

=== Subjectivism ===
The post-processualists' approach to archaeology is diametrically opposed to that of the processualists. The processualists, as [[positivism|positivists]], believed that the [[scientific method]] should and could apply to archaeological investigation, therefore allowing archaeologists to present [[Objectivity (philosophy)|objective]] statements about past societies based upon the evidence. Post-processual archaeology, however, questioned this stance, and instead emphasized that archaeology was [[Subjectivity|subjective]] rather than objective, and that what truth could be ascertained from the archaeological record was often relative to the viewpoint of the archaeologist responsible for unearthing and presenting the data.{{sfn|Trigger|2007|pp=451–452}} As the archaeologist Matthew Johnson noted, "Postprocessualists suggest that we can never confront theory and data; instead, we see data through a cloud of theory."{{sfn|Johnson|1999|p=102}}

=== Interpretation ===
Due to the fact that they believe archaeology to be inherently subjective, post-processualists argue that "all archaeologists... whether they overtly admit it or not", always impose their own views and biases into their interpretations of the archaeological data.{{sfn|Johnson|1999|p=103}} In many cases, they hold that this bias is political in nature.{{sfn|Trigger|2007|p=467}} Post-processualist Daniel Miller believed that the positivist approach of the processualists, in holding that only that which could be sensed, tested and predicted was valid, only sought to produce technical knowledge that facilitated the oppression of ordinary people by elites.{{sfn|Miller|1984|p=38}} In a similar criticism, Miller and Chris Tilley believed that by putting forward the concept that human societies were irresistibly shaped by external influences and pressures, archaeologists were tacitly accepting [[social injustice]].{{sfn|Miller|Tilley|1984|p=2}} Many post-processualists took this further and criticised the fact that archaeologists from wealthy, Western countries were studying and writing the histories of poorer nations in the [[Second World|Second]] and [[Third World]]s. [[Ian Hodder]] stated that archaeologists had no right to interpret the prehistories of other ethnic or cultural groups, and that instead they should simply provide individuals from these groups with the ability to construct their own views of the past.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Hodder |first=Ian |author-link=Ian Hodder |year=1984a |title=Archaeology in 1984 |journal=[[Antiquity (journal)|Antiquity]] |volume=58 |issue=222 |pages=25–32 |doi=10.1017/S0003598X00055940 |s2cid=163788037 |doi-access=free}}</ref> While Hodder's viewpoint was not universally accepted among post-processualists, there was enough support for opposing [[racism]], [[colonialism]] and professional elitism within the discipline that in 1986 the [[World Archaeological Congress]] was established.{{sfn|Trigger|2007|p=452}}

A number of post-processualists, such as [[Michael Shanks (archaeologist)|Michael Shanks]], [[Christopher Tilley]] and [[Peter Ucko]], undermined "archaeology's claims to be an authoritative source of knowledge about the past", thereby "encourag[ing] people to question and resist all forms of authority… This position was hailed by its supporters as democratizing archaeology and purging it… of elitist pretensions".{{sfn|Trigger|2007|pp=467–468}}