Monday, October 10, 2011

Historicism, chronology and straw men: situating Hawkes' 'Ladder of inference.'

Historicism, chronology and straw men: situating Hawkes' 'Ladder of inference.' Although widely acknowledged as amongst the leading fathers of modernBritish and European archaeology, generally Christopher Hawkes'writings have had little influence within recent archaeological thought.This is surprising given that, advocating an 'informed'archaeology, his was one of the few voices raised against the scientificprocessualism of 1950-'70s, and his papers of that period stand indistinct counterpoint to those of Grahame Clark (Evans 1995). Despiterecent interest in historical interpretation (e.g. Hodder 1986: 77-102;Barrett 1994; 1995), lacking an all-embracing theory, Hawkes' workhas really had no impact upon post-processualism. To date, hiscontribution remains entirely overshadowed by Childe and, when notmisread mis��read?tr.v. mis��read , mis��read��ing, mis��reads1. To read inaccurately.2. To misinterpret or misunderstand: misread our friendly concern as prying. , is largely overlooked (e.g. omitted in Hodder 1991; in Trigger1989 he receives only one bibliographic reference when compared toChilde's 44).If thus relegated to the disciplinary sidelines, how is it thatHawkes"Ladder of inference' of 1954 commands such ferventnotice? Following recent appraisal of Hawkes' work (Evansforthcoming), the aim of this note is specific - to address theextraordinary misunderstanding of this renowned paper. He delivered'Archaeological theory and method: some suggestions from the OldWorld' at a Wenner-Gren Foundation supper conference held inHarvard University Harvard University,mainly at Cambridge, Mass., including Harvard College, the oldest American college.Harvard CollegeHarvard College, originally for men, was founded in 1636 with a grant from the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. in November 1953 whilst he was a visiting lecturer inOld World Prehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to at the Peabody Museum The Peabody Museum can refer to several museums founded by or dedicated to George Peabody: George Peabody House Museum at his birthplace in Peabody, Massachusetts Peabody Leather Museum in Peabody, Massachusetts . At 14 pages it is a longpaper, yet the 'Ladders' argument itself only extends over ahalf-page. A key document in the history of 20th-century archaeology,citation to it is almost mandatory in any overview of the development ofarchaeological thought and it often serves as a 'windmill' tobe tilted at when marshalling theoretical argument. Lacking a bridgingtheory and apparently privileging economy over ritual, the paper hasbecome something of a straw man for post-processualism (e.g. Hodder1982: 11-12), as it was earlier for New Archaeology due to itsmethodological shortcomings (e.g. Binford 1968: 2023). Hawkes did notrefer to ranking as 'ladders'; this seems attributable toBinford (1968: 20) after Chang's (1967: 12-13) 'ladder ofreliability'.Given the character of its critique, in most cases the paper can onlyhave been read quickly, without a sense of context, and many appear torely on the orthodoxy of established secondary sources. Most telling isthat its qualified discussion of inferential in��fer��en��tial?adj.1. Of, relating to, or involving inference.2. Derived or capable of being derived by limits is rarely marriedwith the remainder - a new framework of chronological terminology. ThisHawkes had first presented in his Presidential Address to thePrehistoric Society of 1950, 'British Prehistory half-way throughthe century' (Hawkes 1951). Its basic premise was to bring theBritish nomenclature and concept of prehistory more into line with itsapplication on the continent, particularly protohistory pro��to��his��to��ry?n.The study of a culture just before the time of its earliest recorded . He argued(1951: 12) that the terminology of the subject should reflect thechronological distance from history:the recognition, in the language we use and the thought itrepresents, that there is also a grading in our degree of knowledge, andin the range of the limits which must inevitably circumscribe cir��cum��scribe?tr.v. cir��cum��scribed, cir��cum��scrib��ing, cir��cum��scribes1. To draw a line around; encircle.2. To limit narrowly; restrict.3. To determine the limits of; define. it.Conscious of the year of its delivery (1950), Hawkes presented this'little cognitional system' as a birthday present to thesecond half of the 20th century. In it he proposed a four-fold division:the Protohistoric ('almost history'; 300500 BC); Parahistoric('alongside history'; 1500300 BC); Telehistoric ('far-offfrom history'; early Metal Ages and secondary Neolithic) andAntehistoric ('before all history'; primary Neolithic,Mesolithic and Palaeolithic).Hawkes was not alone in his call for, nor the first to propose, a newchronology. Alluding to conspiracy, he continued his Prehistoric Societyaddress by declaring that within its membership there were 'severalphilanthropic plotters' working to establish a new pan-Europeanchronology. Hawkes announced that there would be public discussion ofthe proposals, and that Daniel's new framework would shortly appearwithin Man (1951), it being similar to that presented by Childe in hisPrehistoric communities of the British Isles British Isles:see Great Britain; Ireland. of 1940 (p. 11). Obviouslyarousing great interest and reflective of broad dissatisfaction with thecurrent nomenclature, the publication of Daniel's schema drew muchresponse with letters from Childe (#119), Piggott (#152), Sanders (#153)and Powell (#248; all in Man 1951).These various proposals all suggest the need for broadly standardchronological units in response to the unwieldy character ofever-elaborated relative systems of the time. Where Hawkes' ownproposal differed was in its emphasis upon a terminology reflecting thedegree to which prehistory is informed by history. Whilst evoking theair of great lost causes, the bases of these chronologies weresophisticated: 'to separate the code of language definingchronology from the codes defining cultural stages, cultures,technological or industrial stages, phases of art, or what youwill' (Hawkes 1951: 10). Their broad advocacy in the mid-centurysuggests a seminal moment - archaeology being aware of its own projectand believing that its foundations could be re-built. In the midst Adv. 1. in the midst - the middle or central part or point; "in the midst of the forest"; "could he walk out in the midst of his piece?"midmost ofthis, 1950 (as the radiocarbon 'Present') was to take on a newsignificance with absolute dating Absolute dating is the process of determining a specific date for an archaeological or palaeontological site or artifact. Some archaeologists prefer the terms chronometric or calendar to scupper such initiatives [see Evans1989 concerning disciplinary 'modernism').The American context of the 1954 paper's presentation should notbe overlooked. Hawkes took as his starting-point issues raised in W.Taylor's A study of archaeology (1948), in particular, thatarchaeology must be more than the mere chronicling of material culturetraits ('where and when archaeology'), and should reveal theirsignificance - reveal culture. Referring to it as a 'conjunctiveapproach', Hawkes was vague concerning any exact method tosupersede To obliterate, replace, make void, or useless.Supersede means to take the place of, as by reason of superior worth or right. A recently enacted statute that repeals an older law is said to supersede the prior legislation. mere material-analytic study and only suggested that the'how' would differ according to according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. archaeological'fields'.Applying Taylor's approach to the Old World, Hawkes consideredthe archaeology most comparable to that in the 'New',pre-history. Noting that its 'pride' had been in itsindependence from historical texts and the antiquarian an��ti��quar��i��an?n.One who studies, collects, or deals in antiquities.adj.1. Of or relating to antiquarians or to the study or collecting of antiquities.2. Dealing in or having to do with old or rare books. study ofmonuments or art, he went on to compare this with 'text-aided'archaeology, that dealing with phenomena Informed by historic sources.In fact, later in the paper Hawkes advocated the general application ofa direct historical methodology, arguing that prehistoric narrativeswould be more appropriately written in reverse sequence: 'I shouldfeel so much happier if instead of proceeding from the unknown towardthe known, one could proceed toward the unknown from the known'(1954: 167; see 1946 & 1972 for examples of reversed narrative).Although antithetical an��ti��thet��i��cal? also an��ti��thet��icadj.1. Of, relating to, or marked by antithesis.2. Being in diametrical opposition. See Synonyms at opposite. to a concern with 'origins' and acceptedpractice since, this profoundly anti-evolutionist statement is entirelyconsistent with the operational practices of the discipline. This wouldhave been especially true during the subject's formative period andfor any concerned with the construction of typologies. Lacking theabsolutism absolutismPolitical doctrine and practice of unlimited, centralized authority and absolute sovereignty, especially as vested in a monarch. Its essence is that the ruling power is not subject to regular challenge or check by any judicial, legislative, religious, economic, or of radiocarbon determination, the only way to proceed wasfrom the known backwards to what lies 'behind' (Hawkes 1973:622-3).As early as his 1947 inaugural lecture to the Oxford chair,'Archaeology and the history of Europe', Hawkes had held thatwhile archaeology can emulate the methods of the natural sciences, itsdirect operational and philosophical alliances were with history (1948:4-5). He was to develop this theme in an address to the BritishAssociation 10 years later, 'Archaeology as science: purposes andpitfalls'. Appropriate to his professorial tenure on the governingcommittee of the Oxford Research Laboratory, he applauded thecollaboration of archaeology and science. Yet he was wary of thepitfalls of archaeology as 'so splendiferous splen��dif��er��ous?adj.Splendid: "The working genius of American design has been . . . a refining of utilitarian purity into a kind of splendiferous native simplicity"Jay Cocks. science',associating the purity of science and 'proud prehistory' withunilineal cause-and-effect in contrast to historical diversity (1957:93-4):. . . some have discerned the operation of general laws. This, ofcourse, is true also of historians. But do we not, just asanthropologists do, think of ourselves as more scientific thanhistorians? Or at least that the immensity im��men��si��ty?n. pl. im��men��si��ties1. The quality or state of being immense.2. Something immense: "the empty immensity of earth, sky, and water" of historians' material,and the turbidity turbidity/tur��bid��i��ty/ (ter-bid��i-te) cloudiness; disturbance of solids (sediment) in a solution, so that it is not clear.tur��bid TurbidityThe cloudiness or lack of transparency of a solution. caused in it by the frettings and struttings of somany historical human individuals, must prevent their seeing the woodfor the trees - I mean, the men, as trees walking? Whereas with us, wetell ourselves, the most scientific and therefore the best, because thepurest, kind of archaeology is the prehistoric kind, where individualsare nameless and unknown, and so cannot disturb our studies by throwingany of their proud and angry dust into our eyes.Similarly, in his 1950 Prehistoric Society address, after dulyacknowledging the strengths of studying the Palaeolithic through anecological framework, he turned to its limitations (1951: 7; emphasisadded):Where ecology fades out to a mere postulation of hunting and fishingand food-gathering in general, there will only remain industrially humanterms, in the archaeology of stone industries. . . . That the ancestorsof the Seamer people should have come from Hamburg, or of the Obaniansfrom the Pyrenees, is all right, but seems a trifle bookish - an'intellectual' thought - beside the raw, moist reek ofhunter-fisher life which we breathe in Verb 1. breathe in - draw in (air); "Inhale deeply"; "inhale the fresh mountain air"; "The patient has trouble inspiring"; "The lung cancer patient cannot inspire air very well"inhale, inspire the ecological study of theirleavings leav��ings?pl.n.Scraps or remains; residue: The turkey leavings were fed to the dog.leavingsNoun, plthings left behind unwanted, such as food on a plate .'An intellectual thought' - an unfashionable value in theface of 'brave new world' science (Evans 1995). Concerningsubsistence-economics, within the 1954 paper he similarly referred toClark's Prehistoric Europe This bulk of this article encompasses the time in Europe from c 900,000 years ago to 8th-7th century BCE. Pre-PleistoceneThrough most of Earth's history, various subcontinental land masses such as Baltica and Avalonia that would later be part of Europe moved about the globe (1953) as 'a fine example of thissort of work, and a wonderful compendium of knowledge. But its logic issimple, and need never be anything but straightforward' (Hawkes1954: 161), and he further stressed its constraints: 'There isnothing in North American North Americannamed after North America.North American blastomycosissee North American blastomycosis.North American cattle ticksee boophilusannulatus. ecology, by itself, to compel either Iroquoisinstitutions, say, or the Constitution of the United States' (1954:163). Equally, within that address he was pointed in his attack upon thenormative logic underlying evolutionary anthropological theory. Theprimary problem is that such approaches are self-fulfilling (in themanner of 'text-free' archaeology itself) and, lacking atemporal dimension, ahistorical a��his��tor��i��cal?adj.Unconcerned with or unrelated to history, historical development, or tradition: "All of this is totally ahistorical. (1954: 157-8).Within the 'Ladders' paper Hawkes argued that althoughtext-free/-aided archaeology are two very different logical approaches,in practice both forms of reasoning are often combined. When thetechniques of archaeological/environmental science and relevant'folk-life' sources are added, this admixture constitutes somemanner of conjunctive CONJUNCTIVE, contracts, wills, instruments. A term in grammar used to designate particles which connect one word to another, or one proposition to another proposition. 2. approach. Reviewing some of the arguments of his1950 address, he stressed that, unlike the Old Stone Age, cognition of'barbarian' prehistoric Europe is conditioned by textualhistories of the Near East from at least 3,000 BC (obviouslynon-calibrated). Reflecting his faith indiffusionism/'movement', from that time European prehistoryhad a relationship to the Near East and for him it was this proximity tocivilized history that determined interpretation (1954: 160):In rural economy, burial rites, technology, sociology, or what not,there is always, somewhere or other, a point of reference within thehistoric order. We can interpret as we do because we are dealing withthe outer parts of a diffusion-sphere, or of more than onediffusion-sphere, which we know to have history, and ultimately textualhistory, at its centre.Hawkes proceeded to consider how much more difficult archaeologicalinterpretation is without an historic basis of cognition. Having onlyanthropological process to rely upon (1954: 161): 'you are in aworld wholly anterior to textual-historical evidence. And fromanthropology you have in the last resort only "process" -notions of a quite general sort about the social life and activities ofprimitive man'. It was within the context of an entirely'text-free' archaeology that the renowned four-fold'Ladders of inference' - technology; subsistence/economy;socio-political and religious institutions; and spiritual life - wasintroduced (1954: 162, emphasis added):If material techniques are easy to infer to, subsistence-economicsfairly easy, communal organisation harder, and spiritual life hardest ofall, you have there a climax of four degrees of difficulty in reasoning.What is this climax? It is a climax leading up from the more genericallyanimal in man to the more specifically human. . . . So the resultappears to be that the more specifically human are men'sactivities, the harder they are to infer by this sort of archaeology.The critical point is that for Hawkes the only 'sort' ofarchaeology this was applicable to was the truly prehistoric. In hisnomenclature this equated with the ante-historic (pre-secondaryNeolithic) - essentially the Old Stone Age. Methodologicallyinconsistent, when considering his 'type' of archaeology(essentially the protohistoric) he later advocated, if not a reversal,at least a juxtaposition of the inferential sequence (1966: 298;emphasis added):Purely material studies, naturally vital for archaeology of everyperiod, are for protohistoric Europe not enough. Always, of course, weshould seek in them not the economic basis only, but all we can of thesocial structure of life. Yet the later we go, the more we have otherstudies beside us, with sources of their own. They are not confined totechnology and basal economics. They are studies first of language, andthen of many further social matters: religion, law, status - of kingsand chiefs, of smiths, of women - wealth, trade, agrarian institutions;their sources are mostly written, though iconographic sometimes too; andwhen critically treated they can cast their light (or would aprehistorian say their shadow?) outwards from the classical world, andbackwards from the medieval.Earlier in their Prehistoric Britain Prehistoric Britain was a period in the human occupation of Great Britain that extended throughout prehistory, ending with the Roman invasion of Britain in AD 43. Preface of 1947 the Hawkes' hadrehearsed an equally informal interpretative order (pp. 177-8).Admittedly proceeding from the economic to the social, it was groundedin 'common sense' and 'intuition' (Hawkes &Hawkes 1947: 178; emphasis added):For all the many other elements in the culture of a society -religion, art, industry and craftsmanship - it is simply a matter ofobservation and common sense with an intelligent consideration for theinter-relationship between all the parts. . . . These then are some ofthe methods used to turn material things into history, but they are infact no more than convenient tools in the service of the individualmind. The prehistorian's own gifts are far more important; hissuccess will depend on his historical sense, his sensibility in relationto things and to style and, above all, to the intuition necessary forall original research, intuition being of course (equally with feminineintuition Feminine Intuition is a science fiction short story by Isaac Asimov, originally published in the October 1969 issue of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction and collected in The Bicentennial Man and Other Stories (1976), The Complete Robot ) really a delicate intelligence based on a wide semi-consciousaccumulation of past perceptions and detailed facts.There is little methodological rigour rig��our?n. Chiefly BritishVariant of rigor.rigouror US rigorNoun1. in any of this, andcodification The collection and systematic arrangement, usually by subject, of the laws of a state or country, or the statutory provisions, rules, and regulations that govern a specific area or subject of law or practice. of the 'Ladders' came through its borrowings byNew Archaeology. It is therefore ironic that in recent years muchcriticism has been levelled against Hawkes from post-processualistsworking in later European prehistory, who argue that it is often easierto grasp the symbolic/religious organization of an archaeologicalculture In addition to its usual meaning in social science, in archaeology, the term is also used in reference to several related concepts unique to the discipline. Archaeological cultureThis article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. in terms of its totality, than from the lower rungs of theladder up (e.g. Hodder 1982: 11-12; 1986: 31; Shanks & Tilley 1987:83; Thomas 1991: 103). Fine, but in the 1954 'Ladders' Hawkeswas not discussing prehistory as it is generally understood, but'pure prehistory' - the pro-secondary Neolithic. To accuse himof ignoring the non-material, a scholar so deeply concerned withindividuality, history, culture, art and even psychology, is ludicrousand testifies to the depth of the discipline's reading of its own(recent) past. That both 'New' and post-processual archaeologywould equally pillory PILLORY, punishment. wooden machine in which the neck of the culprit is inserted. 2. This punishment has been superseded by the adoption of the penitentiary system in most of the states. Vide 1 Chit. Cr. Law, 797. the paper is telling of the operation of thediscipline: paring argument to the point of caricature (ignoring nuanceand context) in the cause of self-defining opposition. Whilstaccompanied by much diffusionist baggage, perhaps it is the degree towhich one can back-read textual inspiration or intelligibility that isso startling in Hawkes (1954: 160-61; this passage appears on the samepage as the 'Ladder'!):Let us recall Taylor's complaint that the statistical assemblingof many archaeological data still can leave one outside the culturalreality of the life of the peoples one is studying. A historical elementamong one's resources for interpretation, conjoined conjoined/con��joined/ (kon-joind��) joined together; united. conjoinedjoined together.conjoined monsterstwo deformed fetuses fused together. with those oftechnology and of natural history, can surely - at least sometimes -answer that complaint. The fertility symbols so prevalent in thearchaeological material of Neolithic and Early Metal Age Europe stand tobe interpreted with the help of what is historically known about thefertility cults of the ancient East whence the diffusions to the Europeof those Ages started. The interpretation will be by reasoning in thetelehistoric mode. The social organisation Noun 1. social organisation - the people in a society considered as a system organized by a characteristic pattern of relationships; "the social organization of England and America is very different"; "sociologists have studied the changing structure of the family" of much European culture ofthe Late Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron Ages, with its little kinshipgroups, each headed by a father bred to bearing arms, which is displayedby the single-graves, tumuli, or barrows so frequent in theseperiods' sepulchral se��pul��chral?adj.1. Of or relating to a burial vault or a receptacle for sacred relics.2. Suggestive of the grave;��pul archaeology, and by its settlement sites too ifwell enough explored, stands to be interpreted by what is historicallyknown of the social organisation of the Indo-European peoples, andreflected in their epic literature - Homer, Beowulf, the Germanic andCeltic sagas - running from the historic and protohistoric back throughthe parahistoric to the telehistoric mode. Written accounts of Germanicand Celtic religion Celtic religion:see druids. Celtic religionBeliefs and practices of the ancient Celts of Gaul and the British Isles. Celtic worship centred on the interplay of the divine element with the natural world. find some archaeological echoes anyhow as far backas the parahistoric Late Bronze Age Bronze Age,period in the development of technology when metals were first used regularly in the manufacture of tools and weapons. Pure copper and bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, were used indiscriminately at first; this early period is sometimes called the .Hawkes' argument evidently struck a chord at the time. Amongstthe few to recognize the distinction between 'text-free' and'text-aided' practice, in his Approach to archaeology Piggottdiscussed it at length and expanded upon practical examples of eachinferential rung (1959: 9-12). Smith, in her 1955 paper, 'TheLimitations of Inference in Archaeology' (delivered at thePrehistoric Society conference of that year), took as her prime exemplarthe third of Hawkes' levels, social/political institutions. Withinthe context of later European Prehistory, she enlarged upon Hawkes'example of the discovery of a larger hut when excavating a settlement -possibly a chief's house or a medicine lodge or a meeting hut or atemple (Smith 1955: 4-6; see Evans 1998 for an example ofHawkes-inspired 'great' house interpretation). This wasemployed very much as a cautionary tale illustrating the limits ofarchaeological knowledge (Smith 1955: 7):A recognition that archaeological evidence, when it is confined tomaterial remains, demonstrably supports only a limited range ofconclusions about human activity, is incompatible with too ambitious aprogramme for archaeology. It is incompatible, as I see it, with anattempt to 're-create the past' in any real sense, or with aclaim to recognise prehistoric societies from their surviving relics, sothat the subject could be compared either to history or to socialanthropology.In citing the 'Ladders' argument she made littledistinction between text-free/-informed archaeology, at least in a'Hawkesian' sense. Admittedly, he was not amongst those quotedin its first page and whose approaches were criticized (Childe, Clarkand Wheeler), Nevertheless, Smith's stance in relationship toHawkes' argument suggests confusion, which is surprising inasmuchas she was his research assistant at the time (Hawkes 1989: 53). Giventhis and later misunderstandings of the argument, it is extraordinarythat Hawkes never set the record straight. It can only be presumed thathe relished the ensuing notoriety and had no wish to dispel itscontroversy.Early misunderstandings of the basic argument would largely seem toreflect broad sympathies with the limitations of inference (Evans 1988).There was a withdrawal from earlier 'flesh-and-blood'reconstructional approaches and historicism his��tor��i��cism?n.1. A theory that events are determined or influenced by conditions and inherent processes beyond the control of humans.2. A theory that stresses the significant influence of history as a criterion of value. in the face of science andits promise - the fear that 'inspired' interpretations (andrelative chronologies) might overnight be proven erroneous by absolutedating. In Piecing together the past (1956) Childe produced a similar'technology-to-belief' ranking (pp. 129-31), and two yearslater in The prehistory of European society he was singularlypessimistic concerning the recovery of higher level inference.Clark's restructuring of chapter 7 of Archaeology and society inthe revised 3rd edition of 1957 reflects an interpretative hierarchyakin to the 'Ladders'. In previous editions under the generalchapter title of 'Interpretation', food-supply, living area,houses and settlement, material culture, art, religion and socialorganization and behaviour were respectively discussed under separateheadings. In the final edition this is divided into two:'Reconstruction: Economic Life' (chapter 6) and'Reconstruction: Social, Intellectual and Spiritual Life'(chapter 7). Yet whilst suggesting tiered interpretative access, Clarkwas an unrepentant 'reconstructionalist'. Endearing him to NewArchaeology, all was potentially recoverable (Clark 1957: 232; emphasisadded):It might be argued that anything so intangible as religion must forever elude the prehistorian, but the idea that because archaeologydepends on material traces it must be limited in its reconstructions tothe material aspects of prehistoric life is, as we have already seen,fallacious; so long as an activity leaves tangible traces it is amenableto archaeological study.Although hierarchical inasmuch as any archaeological knowledge stemsfrom the study of the basal 'Habitat' and 'Biome'with religion at its top, the complicated and even circular linkages ofClark's accompanying 'great' mandela-like schema wasantithetical to 'rung' progression (1957: figure 25; a muchsimplified version occurred in the earlier editions, e.g. 1947: 152).Where Clark's 'totalizing' archaeology privileged processover chronology, the essential problem with Hawkes' was thatmethodology varied by time and context - history tempered universals.Yet in the end, however much the 'Ladders' argument isqualified, if considered alone, it reads as a processual methodologyapplicable to all societies (see Chang's appreciation 1967:140-41). This is not through an advocacy of science, but derives, inpart, from the fact that Hawkes considered western civilization as theextension of the Greek and accepted the classical world'scategorization of the barbaric. Seeming to compartmentalize com��part��men��tal��ize?tr.v. com��part��men��tal��ized, com��part��men��tal��iz��ing, com��part��men��tal��iz��esTo separate into distinct parts, categories, or compartments: "You learn . . . culture, itsrationale equally reflects his limited appreciation of anthropology. Asense of 'good' sequential logic pervades his work, whichotherwise lacked, for example, the transcendental leaps of Collingwood,with whom he studied (1954: 168). There is otherwise not the scopewithin this note to consider what were the influences which contributedto Hawkes' approach - an archaeology 'grounded in things'arising from a background in museum curation and fieldwork before hisappointment to the Oxford chair, nor the impact of his education inclassics and period specialization in the European Iron Age (effectivelythe cusp of history) - these demand broader study (Harding 1994; Evansforthcoming).In conclusion, unless accepting the defeat of historicism byprocessual science, Hawkes' work has relevance for currentinterpretation - not for its misreading, but for its intellectualhumanism. His notion of archaeology 'backwards' and lack ofconcern with origins has direct affinities with post-structuralism. Itequally reflects upon politically informed or 'situated'practices. Invasion/migration and indigenous response - this wasessentially how Hawkes framed the archaeology of later prehistoricBritain. The result was a dynamic social prehistory, one encompassingethnic pluralism and the fulsome complexity of social/culturalinterrelations. Rejecting notions of unilineal cause-and-effect, hisrichly textured historical approach warrants a wider audience.Unfortunately, its appreciation demands closer reading than thediscipline is normally able to effect.Acknowledgements. The comments and criticism of P. Gathercole, S.Hawkes, J.D. Hill, G. Lucas, N. Sharples, A. Sherratt, M.L.S. Sorensenand T. Taylor have been gratefully received. Abridged and extended froma contribution to the forthcoming Archaeologists: a biographicalencyclopaedia, I am indebted to the volume's editor, Tim Murray.Commissioned in 1994, it warrants mention that its argument was fullydrafted before I was made aware of Harding's obituary overview ofthat same year.ReferencesBARRETT, J. 1994. Fragments from Antiquity: An archaeology of sociallife in Britain 2900-1200 BC. London: Blackwell.1995. Some challenges in contemporary archaeology. Archaeology inBritain Conference Address. Oxford: Oxbow Lecture 2.BINFORD, L.R. 1968. Archaeological perspectives, in S.R. & L.R.Binford (ed.), Perspectives in archaeology: 5-32. Chicago (IL): Aldine.CHANG, K.C. 1967. Rethinking archaeology. New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of (NY): RandomHouse.CHILDE, V.G. 1940. Prehistoric communities of the British Isles.London: W.R. Chambers.1956. Piecing together the past. London: Routledge.1958. The prehistory of European society. Harmondsworth: Penguin.CLARK, J.G.D. 1947. Archaeology and society. Revised 2nd edition.London: Methuen.1957. Archaeology and society. Revised 3rd edition. London: Methuen.DANIEL, G.E. 1951. The chronological framework of prehistoricbarbarian Europe, Man 52 (Article 64): 34-7.EVANS, C. 1988. Monuments and analogy: the interpretation ofcausewayed enclosures, in C. Burgess et al. (ed.), Enclosures anddefences in the Neolithic of Western Europe: 47-73. Oxford: BritishArchaeological Reports. International series 403.1989. Archaeology and modern times: Bersu's Woodbury 1938 &1939, Antiquity 63: 436-50.1995. Archaeology against the state: Roots of internationalism, in P.Ucko (ed.), Theoryin archaeology: a world perspective: 312-26. London:Routledge.1998. Constructing houses and building context: Bersu's Manxroundhouse campaign, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64.Forthcoming. Christopher Hawkes, in T. Murray (ed.), Archaeologists:a biographical encyclopaedia.HARDING, D.W. 1994. Charles Francis Christopher Hawkes Charles Francis Christopher Hawkes (5 June, 1905 – 3 April, 1992) was an English archaeologist and a professor of European prehistory at Oxford University (1946-1972).In 1933 he was married to Jacquetta Hopkins, divorced, and then married Sonia Chadwick in 1959. 1905-1992,Proceedings of the British Academy 84: 323-44.HAWKES, C.F.C. 1946. British prehistoric archaeology: recent aims,methods and results, Nature 157: 717-20.1948. Archaeology and the history of Europe “European History” redirects here. For the Advanced Placement course, see AP European History.The history of Europe describes the human events that have taken place on the continent of Europe. : an inaugural lecturedelivered before the University of Oxford on 28 Nov. 1947. Oxford:Clarendon Press.1951. British prehistory half-way through the century, Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 17: 1-15.1954. Archaeological theory and method: some suggestions from the OldWorld, American Anthropologist 56: 155-88.1957. Archaeology as science: purpose and pitfalls, ArchaeologicalNews Letter 8: 93-100.1966. British prehistory: the invasion hypothesis, Antiquity 40:297-8.1972. Europe and England: fact and fog, Helinium 12: 105-16.1973. 'Cumulative Celticity' in Pre-Roman Britain, EtudesCeltiques 13: 607-28.1989. Christopher Hawkes (appended 'Retrospect'), in G.Daniel & C. Chippindale (ed.), The Pastmasters: 46-60. London:Thames & Hudson.HAWKES, J. & C.F.C. 1947. Prehistoric Britain. Revised 2ndedition. London: Chatto & Windus.HODDER, I. 1982. Theoretical archaeology: a reactionary view, in I.Hodder (ed.), Symbolic and structural archaeology: 1-16. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press (known colloquially as CUP) is a publisher given a Royal Charter by Henry VIII in 1534, and one of the two privileged presses (the other being Oxford University Press). .1986 Reading the past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1991. Archaeological theory in Europe: the last three decades.London: Routledge.PIGGOTT, S. 1959. Approaches to archaeology. London: A. & C.Black.SHANKS, M. & C. TILLEY. 1987. Social theory and archaeology.London: Polity.SMITH, M.A. 1955. The limits of inference, The Archaeological NewsLetter 6: 3-7.THOMAS, J. 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.TRIGGER, B.G. 1989. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.WEBSTER, D. 1991. Hawkeseye: the early life of Christopher Hawkes.Stroud: Alan Sutton.

No comments:

Post a Comment