Interpretive Methods

Post-Processual or Anti-Processual approaches to archaeology seek to uncover meaning. As such, they are deemed relativist and anti-scientific by their processualist detractors.

One of the first alternatives to a processualist approach to make its way into the archaeological literature involves the historical materialism of Karl Marx. Various

interpretations of Marxist materialism corresponding to approaches in the social sciences (e.g. functional, structuralist, phenomenological) have been put forward (Spriggs 1984: 2). But in general, for Marxist theory, the point of departure is society itself (Kristiansen 1984: 74). This starting point allowed for discussions of social and ideological themes that were not possible using a strictly processual approach. As Marx was concerned with socio-

economic change, any discussion of social structures will reference the modes of production which bring about these structures.

The mode of production is comprised of the means of production (the raw materials needed to produce goods) and the (social) relations of production. From the relations of production arise the superstructure, or ideologies. In Marxist theory, human society is divided into two economic parts: the base and the superstructure. Although Marx himself was not concerned with prehistory, his successors used his analysis of history as a springboard to understand prehistory in terms of modes of production. Sahlins dedicates two chapters to a description of the domestic mode of production, in which the household is the unit of production (Sahlins 1972: 76).

106

between infrastructure (or base) and superstructure in precapitalist societies (Godelier 1980: 4). Like processualist methods, Marxist approaches can be too reductive, calling kinship a superstructure hovering over the real social relations - those tied to economic production. When the crux of culture is reduced to labour processes like hunting and fishing, it is easy to overlook discussion of religion, power, and family. Another issue that has been raised is how to approach classless or egalitarian societies. Parker-Pearson suggests replacing the idea of class in the class struggle with another idea found in Marx, the "interest group" (1984: 61). One example of an interest group in prehistoric bands could be the young women about to come of age, as their labour is similar, and they are on the verge of adding another valuable productive capacity to the group as a whole.

Ideology, as part of the superstructure can be seen only as it is "determined by and functions in relation to" the ancient economy (Hodder and Hutson 2003: 80). Thus, the ideological manifestations of wealth, status, and the value can be seen in the archaeological record.

Historical materialism has social implications which are applicable in archaeology. However, returning to Hawke's ladder, one must distinguish between material function and cultural form in order to examine social organization. One way to do this is to seek

"conditions that govern cultural manifestations of material functions in societies"

(Kristiansen 1984: 95). Marxist archaeologists using an analytical framework focusing on the economy of ancient peoples immediately have a wider vocabulary that those using the hypothetico-deductive method.

Even with a Marxist focus on production, it is important not to privilege prehistoric production over another economic force: consumption, especially if evidence arises that the ideological and religious components of superstructure emphasized ritual consumption. "If production is emphasized at the expense of consumption, exchange is looked upon as a primarily economic transaction" (Bradley 1990: 33). This strictly economic focus can distract from the superstructure, or perceived ritual functions of structured deposition. Both

sacrifices and offerings may be considered ritual consumption, as in both cases, highly- valued items are removed from public consumption.

While the advent of Marxist theory has opened up many fruitful avenues of dialogue within archaeology, Renfrew is correct in his criticism that methodologically, Marxist

archaeology aims to force data into congruence with a set of theories that were created to explain 19th century capitalism. As such, it is not the most expedient way to understand structured depositions across the Neolithic.

Structuralist methodology approaches a set of data as belonging to a complex system of interrelated symbolic elements, often in opposition to one another. Analysis of 'structured sets of differences' can be said to be processual in basic form, though this kind of analysis allows us to investigate the meaning of material culture through its

transformations, as culture is meaningfully constituted (Hodder and Hutson 2003: 74). Structuralism relates what would have been separate systems or sub-systems in a

107

processual approach according to a deep, underlying structure that permeates all and determines the position of each piece in the picture.

Claude Lévi-Strauss was one of the first anthropologists to develop the idea of structuralism derived from linguistic analyses, and used binary oppositions in discussion of ritual, food preparation and mythology in order to seek out the creation of cultural

meanings. Structuralism also draws our attention to the missing pieces of the puzzle; it draws us to investigate absences in data (Hodder and Hutson 2003: 72-3). In addition to seeking out the parts of the set, "structuralists look for the structuring factor behind the structured set" (Pouillon 1980: 282). This may at time seem circular, as the parts are used to find the structure, and the structure is also used to seek out the parts.

Structuralist approaches tend to seek out opposed extremes in a cultural product, and "assume them to be the limits of the world in question and to be parts of the generative core that produced it" (Gellner 1982: 114). Imagine trying to figure out the parameters of a deck of cards as they are laid down one by one. Eventually we would have seen all the possible types and be able to guess the extremes: black and red, suits, numbers. One underlying assumption with this is that the generative core will come to light given a large enough range of material exhibiting it. If we only have two cards from which to understand the whole deck, and one is the two of spades and the other is the seven of clubs, we would draw inappropriate conclusions about the range of possibilities, having seen only numbers and the colour black. Another assumption is that there are such binary antipodes in prehistoric thought. How can we be certain we are not choosing arbitrary structures? Any linear spectrum points to two extremes (Gellner 1982: 115), but how can we be sure that prehistoric thought was linear?

With this system, it is useless to apply meanings without recourse to context. When asked to validate structuralist interpretation of material culture, archaeologists tend to fall back upon context. The question of validation of structuralist approaches is a tricky one; Hodder tries to find rigor by demonstrating that the same structures account for different types of data in the same context (Hodder and Hutson 2003: 68-9). Why not then begin with context? One page later, Hodder then recants his verification procedure by claiming that many structures are quite specific and not verifiable. "Part of the validation ...must therefore concern the abstraction of particular meanings related to the structures" (70). We must assume that structures are shared societal norms, there is no rebellion? Is there to be no room for individual agency? Elsewhere, Hodder has shown that the structure of symbols and style can be used to rebel against the elders of a tribe. It is clear that the applications of structuralism are enjoyable, but haunted by claims of arbitrariness and verification difficulty, and do not take into account individual agency.

There are many other theoretical approaches, such as those that focus on agency, feminism, ranking, and embodiment, but none of these have developed methodologies specific to their theory.

The beauty of contextual analysis is how it privileges the data, and uses the data as a starting point to find ways of studying its contexts in order to arrive at meaning. Contextual

108

analysis means continuously going back and forth between theory and the data, trying different theories to see which is the best fit. The archaeologist searches for similarities and differences across the data and tries to tabulate them. In addition to looking for similarities and difference in terms of structuralist antipodes that would have been overlooked in a strictly processual approach, an archaeologist employing a contextual method also looks for differences temporally and spatially, and in terms of depositional context (Hodder and Hutson 2003: 174-5).

The most basic type of context that all archaeologists with pretensions to scientific rigour are concerned with is that of provenience. A contextualist method looks beyond provenance to all that surrounds the deposit as useful to interpretation. The relation to other nearby deposits, the placement in the overall site, all these considerations must be analysed for potential sources of meaning. It is not simply the physical context that must be taken into consideration, but the environmental, technological and behavioural contexts as well (Hodder and Hutson 2003: 204). "The task of the archaeologist is to go round and round the data in a hermeneutic spiral" (Shanks and Hodder 1995: 6).

Concerns have been raised about the efficacy of a contextualist methodology. "Contextualist arguments...prove too much" (Wylie 1993: 21). If data requires

interpretation, why would we privilege one kind of interpretation over another? "Does this contextualism not entail that inferences concerning the past are unavoidably circular?" (Wylie 1993: 21). Interpretation is certainly a process, and by returning to the data to steer us towards appropriate theory, the circle may become a spiral. Though the spiral may not ever arrive at one answer, it will more likely place us closer to an answer than mere measurements and graphs.

In my consideration of interpretive methods, “more likely” to arrive at an answer seemed better than “not at all,” yet still not yet sufficient. The drawbacks of interpretive models: circularity, arbitrariness, and forced congruence with particular disciplines must be mitigated before such a methodology can be put to use. Of the interpretive models, the contextual approach best fits the types of data considered in a discussion of ritual activity. My solution to the drawbacks of using a contextual approach will be discussed in 5.8, with the explication of a new model.

The choice to proceed with a contextual methodology avoids the traps of rigid processualism and allows for flexibility in interpretation. It would be unwise to treat the evidence from sites that differ with respect to preservation, excavation strategy,

technological experimentation and adaptation or even environment in exactly the same way. A contextual approach allows the site itself to determine the starting point and the extent of possible investigation. As such, this approach will influence the evaluation of previous models for the recognition of ritual and necessitate the construction of a new, more purely contextual, model.