Toward an integrated, contextual approach in archaeology: a personal view

Abstract

Systematic analysis of “natural” and “cultural” materials is not a novel concept in archaeology. Many early archaeologists were natural scientists by training. Between the 1920s and 1950s a new generation of archaeologists, with a more narrow background, frequently utilized the expertise of outside scientists to obtain types of empirical information not otherwise available. Since the 1960s there have been several calls for a new, “scientific” archaeology that aims to achieve high levels of interpretative success based on systematic study stimulated by improved research design. Problem articulation and ad hoc methodologies have become central to North American grant applications and the costs of research have increased exponentially. How scientific is this new archaeology and have the results warranted the noise and expense? The best examples of contemporary archaeological research clearly are more complex and more informative than they were a decade ago. But the overall improvement in quality is disappointing. I personally feel that 3 contributitig factors can be isolated: (i) Most of the recent “calls to arms” were written by individuals with little or no training in the natural sciences and with a narrow, if not inadequate, concept of ecology. Anthropologists have been widely exposed to the sociological view that ecology is a matter of interrelationships between individuals, groups, or sets of groups within a population of the same species. There is seldom an appreciation that ecology focuses on systems that comprise interdependent ecological communities of different species within a habitat that further includes a multi-component non-living environment. I do not mean to imply that anthropologists should ascribe to a biological definition of ecology, and I am aware that modern, functional ecosystems are essentially beyond empirical study. For many biologists the ecosystem is basically a paradigm within which to organize and interpret data. This suggests that anthropologists in general, and archaeologists in particular, could formulate a broader paradigm more suitable to their particular problem orientation and empirical data. (ii) The most obvious product of recent, explicitly scientific research is statistical manipulation of remarkably simple empirical data, most of which are traditional and artifactual in nature. Proper statistical processing is an essential component of scientific research, but only as a means to an end. When the intellectual framework is too narrow, the results, no matter how elaborately programmed, cannot hope to allow high level interpretations. (iii) University curricula have not generated many students capable of attacking