Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:14:37.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaeology will be just fine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2016

Artur Ribeiro
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many archaeologists are currently stuck in a mindset in which attention is paid exclusively to ideas that are ‘new’ and ‘revolutionary’. This fetishization of the ‘new’ leads us down a dangerous road as it promotes uncritical disdain of old ideas which remain valid and it advocates fads from neighbouring disciplines which are methodologically vapid and philosophically dubious. The objective of this paper is to question whether archaeology requires constant ‘paradigmatic change’ and my answer to this question is no. By constantly altering the status quo, archaeologists are promoting a culture in which theoretical ‘newness’ is given the spotlight and ideas are considered valid as long as they are original. Against this, I recommend a more critical view of new ideas and a revision of old ones – a culture which prioritizes the quality of archaeological theories regardless of whether they are new or old.

Keywords

theoreticalparadigmcritiquefadimprovementprogress
Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , December 2016 , pp. 146 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bintliff, J., 2011: The death of archaeological theory? in Bintliff, J. and Pearce, M. (eds), The death of archaeological theory? Oxford, 7–22.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J., and Pearce, M., 2011: Introduction, in Bintliff, J. and Pearce, M. (eds), The death of archaeological theory? Oxford, 1–6.Google Scholar
Brassier, R., 2014: Postscript. Speculative autopsy, in Wolfendale, P., Object-oriented philosophy. The noumenon's new clothes, Falmouth, 407–21.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, M., 2016: Grounded objects. Archaeology and speculative realism, Archaeological dialogues 23 (1), 93–113.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, C., 1993: Microhistory. Two or three things that I know about it. Critical inquiry 20 (1), 10–35.Google Scholar
Harman, G., 2002: Tool-being. Heidegger and the metaphysics of objects, Chicago.Google Scholar
Harman, G., 2013: The current state of speculative realism, Speculations. A journal of speculative realism 4, 22–28.Google Scholar
Harman, G., 2011: The quadruple object, Winchester.Google Scholar
Kosso, P., 1991: Method in archaeology. Middle-range theory as hermeneutics, American antiquity 56 (4), 621–27.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T., 1996: The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd edn, Chicago.Google Scholar
Lindstrøm, T.C., 2015: Agency ‘in itself’. A discussion of inanimate, animal and human agency, Archaeological dialogues 22 (2), 207–38.Google Scholar
Meillassoux, Q., 2008: After finitude. An essay on the necessity of contingency, London.Google Scholar
Normark, J., 2014: An object-oriented gender study of Queen Chop the Earth at Yo'okop, Mexico, in Alexandersson, H., Andreeff, A. and Bünz, A. (eds), Med hjärta och hjärna. En vänbok till Elisabeth Arwill-Nordbladh, Göteberg, 355–66.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., 2012a: After interpretation. Remembering things, Current Swedish archaeology 20, 11–34.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C., 1987: Re-constructing archaeology, London and New York.Google Scholar
Shennan, S., 2002: Genes, memes, and human history, London.Google Scholar
Shennan, S., 2007: Evolving ideas, Cambridge archaeological journal 17 (2), 220–21.Google Scholar
Thomas, J., 2004: Archaeology and modernity, London and New York.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S., 1970: Does the distinction between normal and revolutionary science hold water?, in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds), Criticism and the growth of knowledge, Cambridge, 39–47.Google Scholar
Tschauner, H., 1996: Middle-range theory, behavioral archaeology, and postempiricist philosophy of science in archaeology, Journal of archaeological method and theory 3 (1), 1–30.Google Scholar
VanPool, C., and VanPool, T., 1999: The scientific nature of postprocessualism, American antiquity 64 (1), 33–53.Google Scholar
Watson, R.A., 1990: Ozymandias, king of kings. Postprocessual radical archaeology as critique, American antiquity 55 (4), 673–89.Google Scholar
Wolfendale, P., 2014: Object-oriented philosophy. The noumenon's new clothes, Falmouth.Google Scholar