Editing Post-processual archaeology (section)

=== 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}}