Archaeology. The Conceptual Challenge, by Timothy Insoll
Duckworth & Co. 2007. 144 pages, 1 photograph. ISBN
978-0-7156-3457-8 (£11.99)
This short book asks a series of timely questions about the nature of archaeological
enquiry; the place of humans in the natural world; the nature of culture and the
language used in archaeological writing. At the core of the book is a call for a
reconsideration of the implicit assumptions and concepts we engage as archaeologists
and the ways in which our experience of the modern(-ist) world affects our reading
of the archaeological materials we encounter. Does mass access to quick and easy
international travel, for example, have implications for how we understand concepts
of ‘the local’ and does a shrinking world mean that we place less stress on place,
distance and the concept of the journey? Can the products of a society which is
dependent on the written word really understand what it is to be pre-literate? Does
the rise of an ‘on demand’ culture which is less dependent on face-to-face interaction
have implications for understandings of tradition, history and socialisation?
Chapter 2 of the book explores how globalisation has affected archaeological interpretation
and Insoll attacks recent, ego-centred work (such as phenomenological studies),
calling for a reassessment of how we think about social groups and the concept of
community. The nature of materiality is also discussed, as is the changing nature
of diversity and what this means. These themes are expanded in Chapter 3, which
deals in detail with phenomenology. Insoll suggests that, although the biological
equipment for interpreting sensual data may be the same in the present as they were
in the past, the context in which the data gathered from this equipment is interpreted
is very different. Rather than assuming similarities in emotional and sensory frameworks
between the past and present, we should, instead, try and prove that this was the
case. Quite how this could be done is not, unfortunately, addressed.
Chapter 4 discusses the fragmentation of archaeology and the problems with increasing
specialisation, which has led to a ‘shutting the doors’ to broader analyses, especially
those which might cross disciplinary or chronological boundaries. This, Insoll argues,
is a product of the way archaeology is taught: resulting in students either having
a very shallow understanding of a broad range of subjects or a limited knowledge
of detailed aspects of the discipline. Whilst critiquing fragmentation, Insoll recognises
that there is a need for specialisation, but that there should be a reciprocal relationship
between the specialist and the generalist. Insoll also identifies a problem with
classificatory schemes, in which material is forced to fit into typologies and schema,
with little consideration of other ways of ordering the world. This has wider implications:
systems of classification can be diverse and act on levels such as metaphor and
metonym. There may be no correspondence between the ways in which archaeologists
classify data and how this was classified by the people using that material in the
past. This is an interesting discussion, but it is unfortunate that there is no
mention of Tilley’s (1999) detailed consideration of Metaphor and Material Culture,
which dealt with many of the issues raised here.
Insoll concludes the volume by echoing Knapp’s (1996, 150) statement that ‘archaeology
cannot simply borrow theory or metaphor from postmodernism or any other intellectual
movement or discipline: it must continue to develop its own’ and goes on to attack
postmodernism in archaeology in some detail. Central to this attack is the existence,
despite claims to the contrary, of archaeological facts. Insoll (p.115)
argues that, although the ways in which archaeological materials can be read may
vary and that interpretation is, to an extent, open-ended, the materiality of archaeological
data is based in fact, not interpretation: a ‘pot is still a pot’. Insoll suggests
that an understanding of ‘critical realism’ may provide one way of approaching archaeological
material which may take this into account. Whilst accepting that human society can
be characterised as language-like and that knowledge is socially constructed, ‘critical
realism’ calls for empirical frameworks, whilst at the same time avoiding prediction
and the formulation of general laws. Insoll is not, however, calling for a new theoretical
paradigm: ‘critical realism’ equates with ‘common sense’: a mid-point which allows
for debate and interrogation of the evidence, whilst at the same time being grounded
in the data. It also allows a broadening of the theoretical arena: whilst social
construction is a factor in the ways in which human beings perceive and order the
world, it is not the sole factor: climate, environment and nature also play their
parts and ‘critical realism’ allows for the incorporation of these aspects into
interpretation.
The main themes of this book are the questioning of assumptions and taken-for-granteds,
as well the influence of the present on our interpretations of the past. Insoll
recognises the need for an awareness of the self in relation to the past and a questioning
stance with regard to supposed certainties. He also calls for more emphasis on uncertainty
and ambiguity in interpretation and an interdisciplinary approach. The book is clear,
well written, thought provoking and easily digestible. It is a useful addition to
the literature on both archaeological theory and the state of archaeology in the
21st century.
David Mullin
University of Reading
References
Knapp, A.B. 1996. Archaeology without Gravity: Postmodernism and the Past. Journal
of Archaeological Method and Theory 3, 127-58.
Tilley, C. 1999. Metaphor and Material Culture. London: Blackwell.
Review Submitted: February 2008
The views expressed in this review are not necessarily those
of the Society or the Reviews Editor.
|