Archaeology as science fiction.

First Sentence

In recent decades we have witnessed an increasing interest in social theory among archaeologists. The resultant theoretical debate has certainly contributed numerous substantial developments. Nonetheless, archaeology still reveals some shortcomings in this area. For instance, most archaeologists would agree that the temporal depth of the discipline implies a special potential which is not explicitly utilised in other social sciences – that advantage has not yet been fullyexploited. There are several plausiblereasons for thisstate of affairs. One of themmay be found in thetraditionally close bond to social anthropology, lacking a recognition that anthropologists deal with largely different kinds of data. Although eachdiscipline’s main field is the interpretation of the ‘culturally other’, the two do not use the same sort of social information. Anthropology generally employs written records, behavioural studies and living informants, while archaeology primarily studies material culture as a result of social practice. Archaeological interpretations are also complex since, due to temporal depth, we must confront social formations of unknown organisation and structure. In a sense, archaeology might be reckoned as being liberated from literary sources and livinginformants, suggesting that archaeology rather should explore the possibilities of a sociology of material culture, a vital topic that just recently begun to be discussed in the social sciences. In view of the differences between archaeology and anthropology, I believe that it can be fruitful to turn to other branches of the social sciences for inspiration. My conviction is that archaeology belongs among the social sciences; it shares a common bulk of social theory, and possesses an equal potential to play an important scientific and political role in contemporary society.

Description

Abstract: This treatise discusses aspects of the constitution of social identity and social practice in prehistoric social formations. A number of epistemological perspectives of social theory and methodology are examined in order to develop operational strategies suitable for the particular possibilities and constraints of the archaeological record. It is suggested that social practice, i.e. structurative performance, is a suitable object of study as it mediates macro theory of social formations and micro theory of individual identity and motivation. The work departs from a social constructionist standpoint, pointing out the possible different constitution of prehistoric social formations as being temporally distant from contemporary formations. It is argued that the probable existence of ‘extinct’, unknown social practices implies that traditional anthropological and sociological theory and method are not sufficient for archaeological studies. Prehistoric social formations have to be considered on their own terms rather than interpreted through cross-cultural analogies with contemporary societies. Hence the operational strategies suggested here focus on, and seek to increase, the available social information that can be extracted from the archaeological record, including aspects of the local environment. It is proposed that a microarchaeology of locales, i.e. specific analysis of the structurative processes of a smaller time-space sector, is a promising approach to interpret structurating principles and properties of prehistoric social formations. The constitution of the social subject and initiation of social practices are also discussed from various perspectives, including corporeal and psychological aspects. Key-words: social theory, social identity, social practice, materialities, corporealism, constructionism, landscape. Available at: http://www.mikroarkeologi.se/publications/fflic.htm

Subjects

Series Statement

• GOTARC.