Peirce and Archaeology: Recent Approaches

The philosophy of Charles S. Peirce, and in particular his theory of signs (semiotic), has seen increasing interest within archaeological theory over the past 20 years. This article reviews Peirce's most influential ideas within archaeology, directs readers to where in Peirce's voluminous works they can find these ideas, and discusses how each of them has been applied by archaeologists to a variety of different research topics. In addition to the semiotic, these ideas include Peirce's metaphysical doctrine of synechism; his methodological pragmatism; abductive logic; and the phenomenological concepts of firstness, secondness, and thirdness. Finally, I discuss two research areas—materiality and paleolithic archaeology—in which a combination of Peirce's ideas has led to important new insights.

The beginning of the soviet theoretical archaeology: theoretical studies at the Institute of archaeology AS UkrSSR in the 1960s

The article is dedicated to an exploration of archaeological theory issues at the Institute of archaeology AS UkrSSR in the 1960s. This period is one of the worst studied in the history of Soviet archaeology. But it was the time when in the USSR archaeological researches reached the summit, quantitative methods and methods of natural sciences were applied and interest in theoretical issues had grown in archaeology. Now there are a lot of publications dedicated to theoretical discussions between archaeologists from Leningrad but the same researches about Kyiv scholars are still unknown. The archaeological theory includes both generalizations made on the basis of archaeological sources and archaeological methodology. The article emphasizes the history of methodology studies at the IA AS UkrSSR during the mentioned period. The research is based on evidence from the annual reports on a work of the Institute from the Scientific archive of the Institute of Archaeology NASU. According to the documents the theory was mentioned in the early 1950s because of publication of new J. V. Stalin’s works. However, that time as well as at the beginning of the next decade, when works started under three volumes of “The Archaeology of the UkrSSR”, it was written that attention to theoretical issues was focused at the Institute, not enough. At the IA AS UkrSSR discussions on archaeological methodology started in the 1960s when papers on theoretical issues, applying cybernetic, methods of natural sciences and statistical methods into archaeology were regularly presented at sessions of the Academic council. Yu. N. Zakharuk was the most active employee of the Institute who worked in this field. In addition to presentation of papers at conferences, and sessions of the Academic council and publications, he was an executor of the scheduled work ‘Methodological and methodic issues of archaeological science’ in 1968–1970. Also it was planed to publish a book on theoretical issues. In other words, the IA AS UkrSSR was the first archaeological establishment in the USSR where the work on archaeological methodology was scheduled. According to circumstances this work had not been completely finished but the Ukrainian scholar was invited to hold the position of deputy director at the Institute of Archaeology AS USSR in Moscow. Despite a skeptical attitude to the theory among most Soviet archaeologists Yu. N. Zakharuk was able to intensify the work on theoretical issues in Soviet archaeology. A separate theoretical session, which was organized by him at the Plenum of the IA AS USSR in Moscow in 1972, might be considered as an initialization of theoretical archaeology as a new sub-discipline in the USSR.

The Indian behind the Artefact or Things behind the Process?: Humanism, Post-humanism and the Transition to the Neolithic

In recent years, traditional models produced to ac- count for the transition to the Neolithic have been challenged with the creation of narratives that seek to portray the character of this change in specific socio- historical milieus. At the other end of the spectrum, approaches influenced by the material turn have read- dressed this context, defining the Neolithic as a spe- cific horizon within an ever-increasing entanglement. Whilst these interpretive frameworks have yet not been challenged, they might gradually give rise to a new polarization in the debate about the Mesolithic- Neolithic transition. These approaches differ not only in that they operate at different scales of analysis (lived experience, macro-scale). They ultimately echo the humanist/post-humanist debate currently held in theoretical archaeology. In this article, I argue that neither of these ap- proaches is successful in revealing the complex set of forces that triggered the transition to the Neolithic. Drawing from this discussion, I suggest that a more comprehensive review of this context of change re- quires the fusion of elements discussed by these mod- els. This situation hastens new challenges to archaeo- logical practice, and it raises a series of questions on the current state of archaeological theory.

After Interpretation: Remembering Archaeology

In the light of some significant anniversaries, this pa- per discusses the fate of archaeological theory after the heyday of postprocessualism. While once considered a radical and revolutionary alternative, post- processual or interpretative archaeology remarkably soon became normalized, mainstream and hegem- onic, leading to the theoretical lull that has charac- terized its aftermath. Recently, however, this consen- sual pause has been disrupted by new materialist per- spectives that radically depart from the postproces- sual orthodoxy. Some outcomes of these perspectives are proposed and discussed, the most significant be- ing a return to archaeology – an archaeology that sacrifices the imperatives of historical narratives, so- ciologies, and hermeneutics in favour of a trust in the soiled and ruined things themselves and the memo- ries they afford.

The Triviality of the New Innovation and Impact in Archaeology and Beyond

What drives archaeology? Is it new empirical discoveries, new methods or new theory? These factors combined are the fuel of the discipline, is the obvious answer. However, debates and research articles frequently reveal how a perceived need for novelty, originality and impact tends to disentangle this triumvirate of archaeological virtues, giving precedence to one asset over others as the supposed driving force. Focusing on archaeological theory, this article taps into current discussions of the nature of archaeological change, reviewing debates on the formation of archaeological theory, its legitimisation and usefulness. Specifically, I address a recent claim that archaeological theory too readily undermines itself by adopting immature ideas and concepts from other disciplines in an uncritical pursuit of novelty. Finally, I discuss how archaeology may contribute more generally to the formation of theory in the humanities by returning so-called borrowed theory.

Indigenous Theory is Theory: Whakapapa for Archaeologists

Drawn by their foundation in fundamentally ‘otherwise’ posthuman ethical and moral worlds, archaeologists have in recent years employed a number of indigenous theories to interpret archaeological materials. In this paper I consider the potential of New Zealand Maori whakapapa, loosely and reductively translatable as genealogy or ancestry, to become a strand of general theory in archaeology. The qualities of whakapapa which I feel have particular potential are its moral and ethical embeddedness and its insistence on multiple forms of relating. Importantly, whakapapa has an accessible indigenous voice. There is an extensive published literature, both Maori and non-Maori, academic and general, discussing, interpreting and applying Maori social theory, including whakapapa. In addition, whakapapa remains today fundamental to everyday and ceremonial Maori life. It is lived. Employing whakapapa as archaeological theory does not, then, depend on a having a specific authoritative interpreter. Here I have taken recent work by installation artist Maureen Lander as a forum to outline the key principles of whakapapa and to inform my discussion of whakapapa as archaeological theory.

Taking the Wrong Turn? Re-examining the Potential for Practice Approaches in Archaeology

Is the ‘material’ or ‘ontological’ turn a major new paradigm in archaeological theory? Or is it another iteration of the cycle of piecemeal innovation which has created a very fragmented discipline? While there are insights from recent scholarship in this vein which are certainly important, this paper will err toward the latter view. Even though ‘symmetrical’ and other object-agency approaches are still growing in mainstream archaeological debate, much of the source literature upon which they draw has been around for several decades, and accumulated a fair amount of critique. At the very least, therefore, we need to learn from the way the materiality debate is playing out in other sub-fields. Beyond that, I will argue, we should go back to the turn before this one—the practice turn—and explore that road a bit more thoroughly, if we are to find the most useful approaches to develop in the future.