Processualism vs. Post-Processualism - Research Paper Example

Processualism vs. Post-Processualism Abstract Archaeology is the study of the history of man, his past experiences and culture, through studying his remains and fossils. It is a balance between anthropology (study of man’s cultures) and archaeometry (the decay science). In doing this, different perspectives have been put forth in order to help archeologists to carry out their studies effectively. According to Hegmon (2003), archaeological theories are better characterized according to their approaches and foci, rather than their theoretical positions. Consequently, many archaeological theories formulated in North America include: behavioral archaeology, evolutionary ecology and finally Darwinian archaeology, fit perfectly into processual-plus category. Moreover, the postprocessual perspective which has a modern orientation has been found to cause diversity in archaeological arguments, which as a result has led to post-modernism misunderstandings. This article studies the history of Indiana Jones using the two approaches (Winterhalder, & Eric, 2000). It finally compares and contrasts the two approaches, and finally gives the findings of the study. Introduction Theories are guiding principles formulated to help people such as researchers to come up with sensible generalizations of the world around (Hegmon, 2003). This particular study focuses on Indiana Jones’ archaeological approach which is portrayed through drama. A lot of research has been done on this approach, in order to determine if it is a credible way of carrying out archeology. This paper will specifically apply the processual versus the postprocessual approach in trying to come up with sensible conclusions on this title. These approaches present to us the tools to apply in studying a particular topic of interest, so as to come up with relevant conclusions (Praetzellis, 2000). While the processual approach is the original way of studying how humans carried out their things, the Postprocessual approach criticizes the processual archaeology. Indiana Jones is considered to the world’s most famous archaeologist because of the role he plays in most of the movies he has acted (Winterhalder & Eric, 2000). His theoretical diversity in many of the movies he has acted, portray him as a real archeologist from the way he dresses to the way he presents himself. Processual archaeology presents three perspectives that we can employ in studying Indiana Jones: evolutionary ecology which predicts human behaviors in their ecological contexts, and evaluates their behaviors using ethnographic and archaeological data. Secondly, there is behavioral archaeology which focuses on when, where and how human behavior relates to material cultures. Arnold & Nancy (2001) explain that there is the Darwinian archaeology perspective that tries to reconcile Darwinian Theory and other scientific explanations of evolution. On the other hand, the postprocessual perspective comes up with criticisms of the early studies. Literature Review Postprocessual Archeology Postprocessualists are opposed to the ideas of science as the only source of knowledge. They generally classify scientific studies into non-positivist perceptions with no basis (Johnson, 2010). For instance, these people claim that the empirical studies done by science are not satisfactory enough, since they do not have sufficient fundamental facts. According to the postprocessualists, we have active individuals hence, they do not agree with the views of archeologists who make individuals to be lost in their theories. They thus advocate for individuals to be active instead of following blindly the social norms and values that are presented to them. They then emphasize on agency as a tool of active individuals (Hegmon, 2003 & Hurt & Rakita, 2001). Focusing on their understanding, one can conclude that they urge archaeologists to consider rules that can be changed creatively by social beings, rather than the ones that are to be followed blindly. Jones is mainly recognized because of the many films he has acted, some of which include: Last crusade, Lost Ark Raiders and Temple of Doom among others (Winterhalder & Eric, 2000). In understanding the character of Indiana Jones, these films depict some of the traits that make him have a great influence over the people. Most of these films have similar plots, presenting the ways which Indy employs to prevent Hitler’s hands from holding the biblical artifacts. For instance, the movie that explains how the covenant ark was lost is a controversial story, by first trying to understand if the ark existed in the first place. Scholars have ever since tried to explain the whereabouts of the ark, but they have not yet come up with valuable conclusions to the issue (Bentley & Herbert, 2001). Some say it was carried to Canaan while others say that it was destroyed in Babylon. Another movie that approaches archeology in a better way is Last Crusade. It similarly explores another treasure in the bible- Holy Grail (Arnold & Nancy, 2001). This treasure like the ark has numerous stories surrounding its history. People have no clear idea of its existence, and where it finally went to. Some people claim that Arimathea Joseph carried the Grail to France with him, and this claims triggered Nazi to start his Grail search. In the movie, Jones acts brilliantly during their travel, by making marks on the way which in turn give him clues that guide him to the final resting place of the Grail. Apart from being a portrayal of archeological stories, the film has a lot of action and entertainment (Hurt & Rakita, 2001). The film moreover, gives an easy understanding of archeological studies, a field which people have otherwise believed to be very boring. From the above perspective of archaeological study, one can say that other than the normal ways of approaching things in society, a better and interesting way can be formulated to tackle societal issues even better (Winterhalder & Eric, 2000). Indiana Jones is a Great actor, and he can be studied by referring him to the characters he portrays in the films. It can be confidently said that he is a man of remarkable character from the way he approaches issues in the movies. The film called Last Crusade, for instance, was specifically used to evaluate participant’s reactions to Indy’s character and how they can relate it to trilogy. By so doing, it is easy for one to read the minds of the people and thus evaluate their understanding of archaeology. Hegmon (2003) concurs that the main thing to be understood on postprocessual studies is that an individual needs to make a deeper understanding of what she or he is exposed to. Processual Archaeology Johnson (2010) argues that under this study the actual study of fossils and human remains are done and generalizations are then made regarding the ages of the fossils. For example, the Darwinian Theory focuses on replicative success which refers to the traits of the fossils. It states that fossils that show traits that are functionally advantageous, had greater reproductive success hence high chances of selection over the others. However, this view has been encountered by numerous criticisms, as the postprocessualists argue that the selection process is individualistic and does not occur in grouping. Processual archaeologists believe that there is no way style can be separated from function (Praetzellis, 2000). A very obvious example that they give is that the hairs which were found on the early man were to protect him from cold since he never used cloth. Indiana Jones’ main aim in the field of acting was to present the actual image of a true archeologist (Bentley & Herbert, 2001). He presents himself as real archeologist from the way he dresses; he wears a fedora which is brown in color, a cotton shirt with buttons and a pouch in his shoulders. This portrays a picture of a traveler and adventurer and that should always be the mood of an archaeologist. Apart from his appearance, he is found to possess exclusive traits that enclose participants in the world of archaeology (Echo-Hawk, 2000 & Jones, 2002). His determination in trying to find something of interest in the movies he has acted so far, makes archeology work interesting and achievable. Furthermore, he shows great understanding of many languages which is important in archaeology. From that understanding, one can examine Indiana Jones’ film from another perspective and not necessarily from the way he portrays his character (Daniel & Randolph, 2001). Taking an example of the film which explored the whereabouts of the Bible ark, processualists try to locate the remains of the ark and then make possible conclusions. From the films, it was presented that the ark is in Ethiopia and is being protected by religious guardians. Eastman & Christopher (2001) agree that the possible problem which is likely to come up according to the processuals is that there is no evidence to support these claims. Instead of coming up with such unsupported conclusions, a better and reliable conclusion should have been made using available facts like fossils. The Wyatt, an institute of archaeology, has broadly come out to support the claims that there is evidence regarding Noah’s ark (Bentley & Herbert, 2001). According to the institute, the Noah’s ark is in the lava flow, since excavations of the ark were found there. Research to the validity and accuracy of these claims has been done by many scholars however, and the following findings have been put forth. Both Jones’ films and the archeological evidence differ greatly with the biblical teachings hence none is correct. Archeology only seeks to explain the past using unsure evidence which makes it unbelievable (Praetzellis, 2000). Moreover, excavations are still ongoing in Egypt in order to try and explain the whereabouts of the ark which so far has had a lot of controversies. Comparison of the two archaeological studies While processual archeology emphasizes the social evolutionary explanations which looks at societies as unities with various needs, the postprocessual archeology has its emphasis on individuals as the agents for change (Praetzellis, 2000 & Echo-Hawk, 2000). For instance, in Indiana Jones’s work, Indy has been used as an individual to bring change to the archaeological studies. Postprocessualists argue that as much as processualists identify weaknesses within their system of research, they do not reject their findings but rather make a few changes like in the evolutionary perspective (Hegmon, 2003) Many archaeologists have decided to incorporate both perspectives in their research work because they feel that using them separately might result to greater deviations from the actual work. Furthermore, Postprocessual archaeology emphasizes the use of symbols and different meanings to the study of archaeology (Eastman & Christopher, 2001). Like in Jones’ films meaning can be easily drawn from them, instead of studying fossils and giving people information that may otherwise be wrong. People have different approaches to meaning, and should be given an opportunity to do so. On the other hand, processual work only employs the idea of cognition, where fossils are studied and through the power of reason invested in archaeologists, valuable conclusions are made (Praetzellis, 2000 & Jones, 2002). However, in the contemporary societies symbolic meanings are applied in all the fields of archaeology. Johnson (2010) explains that postprocessual archaeology has a critical approach where it tries to explain every archaeological finding based on the present perspective. It looks at how past interpretations are affected by the present, and how these past interpretations can be made to comprise the present. This is the reason why Jones employs a modern approach to the field of archeology, in order for the findings to fit perfectly into the contemporary society. Processual archeology lacks such critical analysis hence might not be the best research approach (Daniel & Randolph, 2001). With the vast changes being experienced in the contemporary societies, there is need to change the past ways of doing things. Today most archeological work employs the critical perspective. Findings and predictions Having looked at both ways of approaching archeological work, one can say that archeologists mostly employ techniques that might trigger a great number of people to the archeological studies (Praetzellis, 2000). For instance, the social approach employed in processual archaeology, inspires conceptualizations of society rather than individuals in studying change. This popularity has created numerous problems, since it has led to inaccurate generalizations. The individualization suggested by the postprocessual archeology seems to be a better way of study. Nevertheless, if the approach is used in isolation, it may lead to incredible work as well (Eastman & Christopher, 2001). As a result, the two approaches should be used hand in hand because they can cover one another’s weaknesses (Johnson, 2010 & Jones, 2002). Presently, most archaeological work being undertaken, applies both of them hence, it is speculated that the present archaeology is more credible. The past studies lacked focus, thus gave rise to broad generalizations. This is important but it can also be perceived negatively as it fails to highlight a theory’s importance. Hence, application of both perspectives seems to be the best approach to archaeology (Daniel & Randolph, 2001). In addition, symbols also existed in the processual archeology, and it is only the criteria of attaching meaning to them that differed. Conclusion To sum it up, one should first comprehend the archaeological work that is presented to him/her in order to know how to carry out effectively an archeological study. Both approaches are very important in archaeology, as they complement each other. They only differ in the method of presenting the findings to the public. As much as many archeologists prefer the use of postprocessual archeology, the fact is that it also has its own weaknesses. There are things that postprocessual archeology cannot handle clearly, and hence they can be best handled in the processual archeology. Lastly, archeologists are urged not to dwell so much on the present criticisms, but rather drift their focus to the positive things that will make remarkable improvements in archaeological work. References Johnson, M. (2010). Archaeological theory: An introduction. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Hegmon, M. (2003). Setting Theoretical Egos Aside: Issues and Theory in North American Archaeology. American Antiquity, 68(2). Praetzellis, A. (2000). Death by theory: A tale of mystery and archaeological theory. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Winterhalder, B. & Eric S. (2000 ) Analyzing Adaptive Strategies: Human Behavioral Ecology at Twenty-Five. Evolutionary Anthropology, 9(2). Arnold, B. & Nancy L. (2001). Gender and the Archaeology of Death. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press. Bentley, A. & Herbert M. (2001). Stylistic Change as a Self-Organized Critical Phenomenon: An Archaeological Study in Complexity. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8(35). Daniel, I. & Randolph, J. (2001). Stone Raw Material Availability and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 66(23). Eastman, M. & Christopher R. (editors). (2001). Archaeological Studies of Gender in the Southeastern United States. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Echo-Hawk, C. (2000). Ancient History in the New World: Integrating Oral Traditions and the Archaeological Record in Deep Time. American Antiquity, 65(5). Hurt, T. D., & Rakita F. G. (editors). (2001). Style and Function: Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Archaeology. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, Jones, A. (2002). Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice: Topics in Contemporary Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More