Editing Post-processual archaeology (section)

== History ==

=== Precedents ===
Although it would not be actually termed "post-processual archaeology" until 1985 (by one of its most prominent proponents, [[Ian Hodder]]), an archaeological alternative to processual archaeology had begun to develop during the 1970s. Some had already anticipated the theory's emergence, with the social anthropologist Edmund Leach informing the assembled archaeologists at a 1971 discussion on the topic of "The Explanation of Culture Change" held at the [[Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield|University of Sheffield]] that [[Structural anthropology|cultural structuralism]], which was then popular among social anthropologists, would soon make its way into the archaeological community.{{sfn|Leach|1973|p=763}}

[[Bruce Trigger]], a Canadian archaeologist who produced a seminal study of archaeological theory, identified the existence of three main influences upon post-processualism. The first of these was "the [[Marxism|Marxist]]-inspired social anthropology that had developed in France during the 1960s and already had influenced British social anthropology." This, Trigger noted, "had its roots not in orthodox Marxism but in efforts to combine Marxism and [[structuralism]] by anthropologists such as Maurice Godelier, Emmanuel Terray, and Pierre-Phillipe Rey".{{sfn|Trigger|2007|p=44}} The second main influence was [[postmodernism]], which "emphasized the subjective nature of knowledge and embraced extreme relativism and idealism". Having originated among the disciplines of [[comparative literature]], [[literary criticism]] and [[cultural studies]], postmodernist thinking had begun to develop within archaeology.{{sfn|Trigger|2007|pp=446–448}} The third influence identified by Trigger was the New cultural anthropology movement within the cultural anthropological discipline, which had arisen after the collapse of [[Boasian anthropology]]. The new cultural anthropologists "denounced studies of cultural evolution as being ethnocentric and intellectually and morally untenable in a multicultural, postcolonial environment."{{sfn|Trigger|2007|pp=448–449}}

=== Origins in Britain ===
Post-processual archaeology began in Britain during the late 1970s, spearheaded by a number of British archaeologists who had become interested in aspects of French Marxist anthropology. Most prominent among these was [[Ian Hodder]] (born 1948), a former processualist who had made a name for himself for his economic analysis of spatial patterns and early development of simulation studies, particularly relating to trade, markets and urbanization in [[British Iron Age|Iron Age]] and [[Roman Britain]]. Having been influenced by the "New Geography" and the work of the processualist David Clarke, as his research progressed, he became increasingly sceptical that such models and simulations actually tested or proved anything, coming to the conclusion that a particular pattern in the archaeological record could be produced by a number of different simulated processes, and that there was no way to accurately test which of these alternatives was correct. In effect, he came to believe that even using the processual approach to understanding archaeological data, there were still many different ways that that data could be interpreted, and that therefore radically different conclusions could be put forward by different archaeologists, despite processualism's claim that using the [[scientific method]] it could gain objective fact from the archaeological record.<ref>[[#Joh10|Johnson 2010]]. pp. 102&ndash;103.</ref>{{sfn|Trigger|2007|p=450}} As a result of this, Hodder grew increasingly critical of the processualist approach, developing an interest in how culture shaped human behaviour. He was supported in this new endeavour by many of his students, including Matthew Spriggs.{{sfn|Trigger|2007|p=450}}

In 1980 these early post-processualists held a conference at [[Cambridge University]], from which a book was produced, entitled ''Symbolic and Structural Archaeology'' (1982), which was edited by Hodder himself and published by [[Cambridge University Press]]. In his introduction to the book, Hodder noted that:

:During the early period of exploration and development of ideas, premature conference presentations and individual seminars were given by various members of the Cambridge group in other archaeological departments in England and abroad. Individual scholars who were invited to talk to us in Cambridge in that period often felt, understandably, obliged to maintain a distinct opposition. While it is certainly the case that these presentations had occurred before our views had even begun to settle down, and that they were excessively aggressive, they played an important role in the process of enquiry and reformulation. In particular, the contrasts which were set up by us and by outside scholars allowed the views of the seminar group, and the differences of viewpoint within the group, to be clarified. The opposition highlighted our own opinion but also threw the spotlight on the blind alleys down which there was a danger of straying. Our aggression resulted from the conviction that we were doing something new. This, too, was important. In the initial period there was a clear idea of what was wrong with existing approaches and there was a faith that something else could be done.{{sfn|Hodder|1982|p=vii}}

Bruce Trigger considered this book to be "a postprocessual showcase and counterpart to ''New Perspectives in Archaeology''", the 1968 book written by American archaeologist [[Lewis Binford]] (1931–2011) that helped to launch the processual movement.{{sfn|Trigger|2007|p=450}}

=== Development in the United States ===
Post-processual archaeology developed largely independently among the archaeological community in the [[United States]]. As such its primary influence was critical theory, as opposed to the French Marxist anthropology which had been the primary influence upon their British counterparts. Many American archaeologists had begun to recognise issues of bias within the scientific community, and within the processual movement itself which attempted to be scientific. They also began to notice elements of ethnic prejudice within archaeology, particularly in regards to [[Indigenous peoples of the Americas|Native American]] peoples, who had commonly not had a chance to participate in their own heritage management up until the 1990s.{{sfn|Trigger|2007|pp=456–458}} Many American archaeologists also began to take note of a [[gender]] bias in the archaeological interpretation and in the discipline as a whole, as women had been largely marginalised. The 1980s saw archaeological studies finally being published that dealt with this issue, namely through [[Joan Gero]]'s paper on "Gender bias in archaeology: a cross-cultural perspective" (1983)<ref>{{cite book |last=Gero |first=Joan |author-link=Joan Gero |year=1983 |chapter=Gender bias in archaeology: a cross-cultural perspective |title=The Socio-Politics of Archaeology |editor-last=Gero |editor-first=J. M. |editor2-last=Lacy |editor2-first=D. M. |editor3-last=Blakey |editor3-first=M. L. |location=Amherst |publisher=[[University of Massachusetts]]}}</ref> and [[Margaret Conkey]] and Janet Spector's paper on "Archaeology and the Study of Gender" (1984).<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Conkey |first1=Margaret |last2=Spector |first2=Janet |year=1984 |title=Archaeology and the Study of Gender |journal=Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory |volume=7 |pages=1–38}}</ref> Among the post-processualists, less emphasis was put on correcting [[class system|class]] biases in the American archaeological record than had been put into studying gender and ethnic differences. Instead, it was mostly among [[historical archaeology|historical archaeologists]] (those who study the archaeology of the historic, or literate period of the past), that such investigation into marginalised classes such as workers and slaves took place.{{sfn|Trigger|2007|p=460}}