Confronting scale in archaeology: Issues of Theory and Practice

281 Pages·2006·4.03 MB·English

by  Alan Costall (auth.)

CONFRONTING SCALE
IN ARCHAEOLOGY
Issues of Theory and Practice
CONFRONTING SCALE
IN ARCHAEOLOGY
Issues of Theory and Practice
Edited by
Gary Lock
UniversityofOxford
Oxford, United Kingdom
and
Brian Leigh Molyneaux
UniversityofSouth Dakota
Vermillion, South Dakota, USA
GaryLock BrianLeighMolyneaux
InstituteofArchaeology UniversityofSouthDakota
UniversityofOxford 414EastClarkStreet
36BeaumontStreet Vermillion,SouthDakota57069
OxfordOX12PG USA
UK [email protected]
[email protected]
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2006921906
ISBN-10:0-387-28031-6
ISBN-13:978-0387-28031-8
(cid:2)2006SpringerScienceþBusinessMedia,LLC
Allrightsreserved.Thisworkmaynotbetranslatedorcopiedinwholeorinpartwithoutthewritten
permission of the publisher (Springer ScienceþBusiness Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York,
NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in
connectionwithanyformofinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,or
bysimilarordissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdevelopedisforbidden.Theuseinthis
publicationoftradenames,trademarks,servicemarksandsimilarterms,eveniftheyarenotidentifiedas
such,isnottobetakenasanexpressionofopinionastowhetherornottheyaresubjecttoproprietaryrights.
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica(SPI/IBT)
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
springer.com
He form’d aline and aplummet
To divide the Abyss beneath;
He form’d adividing rule;
He formed scales to weigh,
He formed massy weights;
He formed abrazenquadrant;
He formed golden compasses,
And began toexplore the Abyss;
And heplanted agardenoffruits.
WilliamBlake, TheFirstBook of Urizen (1794), ChapterVII, Verses 7–8.
Contributors
Joe Alan Artz
Officeofthe State Archaeologist,University ofIowa, USA
William E. Banks
Institut dePrehistoire et deGeologie duQuaternaire, France
AndrewBevan
Instituteof Archaeology, UniversityCollege London, UK
OskarBurger
Department of Anthropology, Universityof New Mexico, USA
JamesConolly
Department of Anthropology, Trent University,Canada
Alan Costall
Department of Psychology, University ofPortsmouth, UK
GrahamFairclough
English Heritage, UK
Richard A.Fox
Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Universityof South Dakota, USA
Chris Gosden
Instituteof Archaeology, Universityof Oxford, UK
Trevor Harris
Department of Geology andGeography, West VirginiaUniversity, USA
Gill Hey
Oxford Archaeology, Oxford, UK
Simon Holdaway
Department of Anthropology, Universityof Auckland, New Zealand
KarolaKirsanow
Department of Anthropology, Universityof Cambridge, UK
MalcolmRidges
Department of Environment and Conservation, New South Wales, Australia
viii Contributors
Lawrence C.Todd
Department ofAnthropology, Colorado State University, USA
Vuk Trifkovic´
Institute ofArchaeology,University ofOxford, UK
LuAnn Wandsnider
DepartmentofAnthropologyandGeography,UniversityofNebraska-Lincoln,USA
H. Martin Wobst
Department ofAnthropology, University ofMassachusetts, USA
ThomasYarrow
Department ofSocial Anthropology, Universityof Cambridge,UK
LarryJ. Zimmerman
Department of Anthropology, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis,
USA
Acknowledgements
This collection of papers is loosely based on a session at TAG 2000 (Theoretical
Archaeology Group) at Oxford University. We would like to thank all of the
contributorsfortheirpatienceandunderstandingduringthegestationandproduction
of this volume. We hope the final result has been worth the wait. We would also
like tothankTeresaKrauss ofSpringer for her supportand encouragement.
Preface
Archaeological analysis operates on a continuum of scale from the microscopic
analysis of a single artifact to regional interpretations of cultural adaptations over
thousandsofyears.Acommonassumptionisthatshiftingfromonescaletoanother
in space and time is a seamless process. Scale in this sense is invisible, a mere
mathematical abstraction. Yet, issues of scale exist at the fundamental level of
archaeological interpretation. The traditional analytical debate in archaeology –
betweenadvocatesoftheso-called‘‘processual’’and‘‘postprocessual’’approaches
– ranges around the question of scales of reasoning. At the one extreme, remote
observation and the ability to interpret events and processes over vast reaches of
timeandspacearepossible,becausetheanalysisconcernsthehoped-forelucidation
ofgeneralculturalprocesses;attheother,theyarenot,asbothanalystandsubject
areisolatedintheirownsubjectivities.Analystsoccupyingthemiddlegroundoften
advocate a ‘‘multidimensional’’ or ‘‘holistic’’ approach, which involves multiple
scales ofanalysisand interpretation.
As the battleground tends to be the degree to which specific datasets and
analytical processes justify the interpretations put forth, archaeologists rarely ad-
dressissuesrelatingtotheprofoundshiftsinthescaleofvisualizationnecessaryin
all approaches to the past. And why should they? Ignoring scale is the concession
archaeologymakestointerpretation.Afterall,isitnotludicroustoimaginethatwe
canunderstandactualculturallifefromrubbishandruins?Thisproblemisexacer-
batedbytheriseofcomputer-basedvisualizationandanalysistechnologiessuchas
remote sensing, geographical information systems (GIS) and virtual reality (VR).
Researchersarenowabletoresolveandinterprettheirdataatmultiplescalesalmost
effortlessly– aseduction sopersuasivethattheentire issueofscale issimply,and
commonly, ignored.
However, scale has a direct impact on archaeology’s vision of the past. The
common experience of scale by both the subjects of archaeological research and
archaeologistsrelatestospace,timeandsocialposition.Ashumansinthelived-in
world, we are middle-sized objects and develop our knowledge up and down
through the cosmos from this position. By nature, we oversee things and relation-
ships that are smaller than us and use imaginative and technological means to
encompass the larger-scale world that we cannot see directly. As for time, the
essential problem is that time simply passes, and past time only exists for all
practical purposes in the material traces (data) of its action. We are left with the
profoundproblemofrecognizing,andreconstituting,massesofdataasportionsof
xii Preface
time(asiftimeoccupiesspace).Finally,scaleasahumanphenomenonisculturally
constructed.Thisissimplytorecognizethatthepositionsweadoptinliferelateto
our positions within a society and culture. This clearly affects our perceptions of
thingsandsituationsandthewayweacton,withorthroughthesephenomena.We
can therefore interpret cultural production – whether artifacts or archaeological
studies–asactswithinsocial(political)discourseatscalesrelatedtocultural,rather
than natural, dynamics.
To complicate the question further, archaeological analysis has two general
referents:thecultureofproductionandthecultureofinterpretation.Thechallenge
of the archaeologist is to understand the dynamics of scale that entered into
production andto account for these ininterpretation.
The goal of Confronting Scale in Archaeology is to illustrate the workings of
scale in the production of culture and its analysis. Befitting its scope, the book
brings together scholars from Europe and North America to express their own
opinions about this seminal issue. Mindful of the diverse cultural and intellectual
traditions represented, we have retained the spellings and word usages consistent
with each contributor’s cultural milieu. We asked each author to address key
questions crucial to multidimensional research into the past for all archaeologists,
whethertheyworkwithconventionalanalyticaltechniquesorwithcomputer-based
visualization tools:
. How does scale influence ourperception ofspace and time?
. Is an understanding of scale socially, or culturally, constructed? If so, how
canwerecognizeanddecipherpastmeaningfulscalesoflivingthroughthe
present material record?
. What are the problems and implications of moving between scales? Are
scales of meaning different to scales of data and how do we make connec-
tions? Arethe claimsfor seamless transitionsbetween scales justified?
. If the production and analysis of material culture have different scales of
reference, or even multiple scales of reference, how can we integrate data
into the broader interpretive formof alandscape?
By facing the issues of scale head-on in an explicit theoretical discourse, the
authorsgatheredhereexploreprocessesofunderstandingdata,thedesign,conduct
and interpretation of surface surveys and excavations, and the nature of past and
presenthumanperceptionsandusesoftheenvironment.Wehopethattheirinsights
will enhancearchaeology’sceaseless exploration ofspace, time and culture.
Gary Lock
BrianMolyneaux