Post-Processual and Interpretive Archaeology
Post-processual archaeology emerged in the 1980s as a critique of processualism, emphasizing meaning, agency, context, and the inevitably interpretive and political nature of archaeological knowledge.
Definition
A set of interpretive theoretical approaches that treat material culture as actively meaningful and read it contextually, stressing agency, multiple interpretations, and the social and political situatedness of archaeological knowledge.
Scope
This topic covers the family of interpretive approaches that challenged the New Archaeology, including contextual archaeology, structuralist and Marxist readings, and influences from hermeneutics and critical theory. It addresses the treatment of material culture as meaningfully constituted, the role of agency and individual actors, and reflexive concerns with the archaeologist's own standpoint.
Core questions
- Is archaeological interpretation objective or unavoidably situated?
- How is material culture meaningfully constituted and read in context?
- What roles do agency, gender, and individual actors play in the past?
- How should archaeologists reflect on their own social and political position?
Key theories
- Contextual and interpretive archaeology
- Hodder's argument that material culture is like a text whose meaning depends on context, so interpretation must be contextual and acknowledge that the past is actively read in the present.
- Critical and social-theoretical archaeology
- Shanks and Tilley's incorporation of Marxist and critical theory, framing archaeology as a political practice and material culture as bound up with power, ideology, and social reproduction.
History
Post-processualism arose in Britain in the early 1980s, led by Ian Hodder and his students, drawing on structuralism, hermeneutics, Marxism, and later post-structuralism. It diversified into contextual, symbolic, feminist, and phenomenological strands, and although criticized for relativism, it permanently broadened archaeology's theoretical range and reflexive awareness.
Debates
- Relativism and the limits of interpretation
- Critics charge that emphasizing multiple interpretations risks relativism that undercuts archaeology's empirical claims, while proponents argue interpretation is unavoidable and can still be disciplined by evidence.
Key figures
- Ian Hodder
- Michael Shanks
- Christopher Tilley
- Matthew Johnson
Related topics
Seminal works
- hodderhutson2003
- shankstilley1987
Frequently asked questions
- What does post-processual archaeology react against?
- It reacts against processual archaeology's claim to scientific objectivity and general laws, arguing instead that meaning, agency, and the archaeologist's own context shape interpretation.
- Does post-processualism reject science in archaeology?
- Not entirely; it questions the idea of wholly objective explanation and stresses interpretation, but most practitioners still rely on careful empirical evidence.