Theoretical archaeology: a reactionary view

Abstract

Functionalism is defined as the use of an organic analogy in the explanation of societies, with particular reference to system, equilibrium and adaptation. The New Archaeology is found to be functionalist and a critique of functionalism is put forward, centring on the dichotomies between culture and function, individual and society, statics and dynamics, and on the links to positivism. Criticisms of an alternative approach, structuralism, include the lack of a theory of practice, the dichotomies between individual and society, statics and dynamics, and the paucity of rigour in the methods employed. A contextual or cultural archaeology is described which is based on the notion of ‘structuration’, and which attempts to resolve many of the difficulties associated with functionalism and ‘high’ structuralism. The main concern is with the role of material culture in the reflexive relationship between the structure of ideas and social strategies. Similarities are identified with the historical and humanistic aims of an older generation of British prehistorians such as Daniel, Piggott, Clark and Childe. Today, however, the earlier aims can be followed more successfully because of developments in social theory and ethnographic studies. Functionalism and the New Archaeology In defining functionalism, a simplified version of Radcliffe-Brown's (1952) account will be used since his approach can be shown to be close to that followed by many New Archaeologists (those who in the 1960s and 1970s were concerned with explanations and approaches of the types outlined by Binford and his associates).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 207 citations exist upstream.