Abstract
The archaeological is regularly perceived in negative terms as lacking and deficient. It is fragmented, static, and crude, a residue of past living societies. Accordingly, much of archaeologists’ efforts are directed toward the amendment of these flaws. The present paper, however, argues that these so-called deficiencies are in fact constitutive absences. Whatever the archaeological lacks, it lacks by definition. It thus follows that working to render the archaeological “complete” is in fact an effort to undo it, to convert it into something else. For the sake of discovering the past, archaeological practice is a sustained effort to rid itself of the very phenomenon that defines it, consequently setting in motion self-perpetuating circularity predicated on deficiency and compensation. The reason for this, it is suggested, is the otherness of the archaeological, being at one and the same time a cultural phenomenon and a fossil record, a social construct and a geological deposit. This condition is so baffling that it is approached by transforming it into something familiar. The paper argues that understanding the archaeological should be archaeology’s first priority. Insofar as it is also the study of the past, this should be predicated on the understanding of the archaeological present.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The ontological turn in other fields of study did not have to give up the human, nor the constant movement of social interactions. This is unique for archaeology and it is also where, ultimately, the greatest rewards are likely to be found.
This is not to deny, however, that archaeology constitutes the archaeological as an object of inquiry. But one should not take this to mean that the archaeological is dependent on the archaeologist for its existence, or that it is reducible to archaeological practice.
This is a fairly narrow definition and one that poses significant problems regarding the finds of surveys or archaeologies of the present (Badcock and Johnston 2009; Buchli and Lucas 2001; Gould and Schiffer 1981; Harrison and Schofield 2009; Harrison 2011; Rathje 1979). It is beyond the scope of this paper to consider these issues in detail here. I will only say that one may engage these issues in two ways. One is that the archaeological can possibly be a matter of degree, in which forms of disengagement from society and culture (other than burial) may be considered. Second is to consider the archaeological record as a means of mitigation or conversion—the present may be made more archaeological if an archaeological record is produced from it.
In most archaeological circumstances, the matter of placing blame is more general, of course. But, it nevertheless is there, with reference to time, natural processes of degradation or so-called disturbances.
References
Badcock, A., & Johnston, R. (2009). Placemaking through protest: an archaeology of the lees cross and endcliffe protest Camp, Derbyshire, England. Archaeologies, 5(2), 306–322. doi:10.1007/s11759-009-9106-z.
Bailey, G. (2007). Time perspectives, palimpsests and the archaeology of time. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 26(2), 198–223. doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2006.08.002.
Bailey, G. N. (1983). Concepts of time in quaternary prehistory. Annual Review of Anthropology, 12(1), 165–192. doi:10.1146/annurev.an.12.100183.001121.
Bille, M., Hastrup, F., & Sørensen, T. F. (Eds.). (2010). An anthropology of absence: materializations of transcendence and loss. New York: Springer.
Binford, L. R. (1975). Sampling, judgement and the archaeological record. In J. W. Mueller (Ed.), Sampling in archaeology (pp. 251–257). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Binford, L. R. (1981). Behavioral archaeology and the “Pompeii premise”. Journal of Anthropological Research, 37(3), 195–208.
Bintliff, J. (2011). The death of archaeological theory? In J. Bintliff & M. Pearce (Eds.), The death of archaeological theory? (pp. 7–22). Oxford: Oxbow Books. doi:10.1179/146195712X13419103979719.
Brown, B. (2001). Thing theory. Critical Inquiry, 28(1), 1–22. doi:10.1086/449030.
Bryant, L., Srnicek, N., & Harman, G. (2011). The speculative turn. Continental materialism and realism. Melbourne: re.press.
Buchli, V., & Lucas, G. (2001). The absent present. Archaeologies of the contemporary past. In V. Buchli & G. Lucas (Eds.), Archaeologies of the contemporary past (pp. 3–18). London: Routledge.
Collins, M. B. (1975). Sources of bias in processual data: an appraisal. In J. W. Mueller (Ed.), Sampling in archaeology (pp. 26–32). Tucson: University of Arizona Press Tucson.
Gamble, C. (2007). Archaeology: the basics (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203158043
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
Gerring, J. (2012). Mere description. British Journal of Political Science, 42(04), 721–746. doi:10.1017/S0007123412000130.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633. doi:10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100.
Gould, R. A., & Schiffer, M. B. (Eds.). (1981). Modern material culture: the archaeology of us. New York: Academic Press.
Harman, G. (2010). I am also of the opinion that materialism must be destroyed. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28, 772–790.
Harman, G. (2014). Entanglement and relation: a response to Bruno Latour and Ian Hodder. New Literary History, 45(1), 37–49. doi:10.1353/nlh.2014.0007.
Harrison, R. (2011). Surface assemblages. Towards an archaeology in and of the present. Archaeological Dialogues, 18(2), 141–161. doi:10.1017/S1380203811000195.
Harrison, R., & Schofield, J. (2009). Archaeo-ethnography, auto-archaeology: introducing archaeologies of the contemporary past. Archaeologies, 5(2), 185–209. doi:10.1007/s11759-009-9100-5.
Hetherington, K. (2004). Secondhandedness: consumption, disposal, and absent presence. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 22(1), 157–173. doi:10.1068/d315t.
Hodder, I. (1997). “Always momentary, fluid and flexible”: towards a reflexive excavation methodology. Antiquity, 71(10), 691–700.
Hodder, I. (2012). Entangled: an archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Johnson, M. H. (2006). On the nature of theoretical archaeology and archaeological theory. Archaeological Dialogues, 13(2), 117–132. doi:10.1017/S138020380621208X.
Jones, A. (2004). Archaeometry and materiality: materials based analysis in theory and practice. Archaeometry, 3, 327–338. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4754.2004.00161.x.
Knappett, C., & Malafouris, L. (Eds.). (2008). Material agency: towards a non-anthropocentric approach. New York: Springer.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
LaCapra, D. (1999). Trauma, absence, loss. Critical Inquiry, 25(4), 696–727.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Law, J. (2009). Actor network theory and material semiotics. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory (pp. 141–158). Oxford: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444304992.ch7.
Leach, E. (1973). Concluding Address. In C. Renfrew (Ed.), The explanation of culture change: models in prehistory (pp. 761–771). Gloucester Crescent: Duckworth.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lucas, G. (2004). Modern disturbances: on the ambiguities of archaeology. Modernism/modernity, 11(1), 109–120. doi:10.1353/mod.2004.0015.
Lucas, G. (2012). Understanding the archaeological record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1991). Phenomenology. Albany: State University of New York Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=RfXzqfseJo0C&pgis=1 .
Megill, A. (1989). Recounting the past: “description”, explanation, and narrative in historiography. The American Historical Review, 94(3), 627–653. doi:10.2307/1873749.
Megill, A. (2007). Historical knowledge, historical error: a contemporary guide to practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Meskell, L. (2013). Dirty, pretty things: on archaeology and prehistoric materialities. In P. N. Miller (Ed.), Cultural histories of the material world (pp. 92–107). Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Murray, T. (1999). A return to the “Pompeii premise”. In T. Murray (Ed.), Time and archaeology (pp. 8–27). London: Routledge.
Murray, T., & Walker, M. J. (1988). Like WHAT? A practical question of analogical inference and archaeological meaningfulness. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 7(3), 248–287. doi:10.1016/0278-4165(88)90010-4.
Olivier, L. (2011). The dark abyss of time: archaeology and memory. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Olsen, B. (2003). Material culture after text: remembering things. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 36(2), 87–104. doi:10.1080/00293650310000650.
Olsen, B. (2010). In defense of things: archaeology and the ontology of objects. Lanham: Altamira Press.
Olsen, B., Shanks, M., Webmoor, T., & Witmore, C. L. (2012). Archaeology: the discipline of things. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Patrik, L. (1985). Is there an archaeological Record. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 8, 27–62.
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Rathje, W. L. (1979). Modern material culture studies. Advances in archaeological method and theory, 1–37
Schiffer, M. B. (1972). Archaeological context and systemic context. American antiquity, 37(2), 156–165.
Schiffer, M. B. (1985). Is there a“ Pompeii Premise” in archaeology? Journal of Anthropological Research, 18–41
Schiffer, M. B. (1987). Formation processes of the archaeological record. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Schnapp, A. (2002). Between antiquarians and archaeologists—continuities and ruptures. Antiquity, 76(291), 134–140.
Shanks, M. (2007). Symmetrical archaeology. World Archaeology, 39(4), 589–596. doi:10.1080/00438240701679676.
Shanks, M., Platt, D., & Rathje, W. L. (2004). The perfume of garbage: modernity and the archaeological. Modernism/modernity, 11(1), 61–83. doi:10.1353/mod.2004.0027.
Sørensen, T. F. (2015). In praise of vagueness: uncertainty, ambiguity and archaeological methodology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. doi:10.1007/s10816-015-9257-8
Thrift, N. (2008). Non-representational theory: space, politics, affect. London: Routledge.
Webmoor, T. (2007). What about “one more turn after the social” in archaeological reasoning? Taking things seriously. World Archaeology, 39(4), 563–578. doi:10.1080/00438240701679619.
White, N. M. (2008). Archaeology for dummies. Hoboken: Wiley Publishing, Inc.
Witmore, C. L. (2015). No past but within things. In M. Mircan & V. W. J. van Gerven Oei (Eds.), Allegory of the cave painting (pp. 375–394). Antwerpen: Extra City Kunsthal.
Wylie, A. (2002). The reaction against analogy. In Thinking from things: essays in the philosophy of archaeology (pp. 136–153). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Acknowledgements
The paper began with a colloquial talk, held in the Martin Buber Society of Fellows, Jerusalem and gained from the ensuing discussion. It benefited much from the informed opinions of friends and colleagues, to whom I am indebted: Ron Shimelmitz, Sarit Paz, Lutz Greisiger and Raphael Greenberg. I am particularly grateful to Nitzan Rothem for introducing me to LaCapra. Lastly, thanks are due to three anonymous reviewers for their perceptive and constructive comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nativ, A. No Compensation Needed: On Archaeology and the Archaeological. J Archaeol Method Theory 24, 659–675 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9282-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9282-2