Structuralism in Archaeology

  • Aleksandar Palavestra Department of Archaeology Faculty of Philosophy University of Belgrade
Keywords:
structuralism in archaeology, poststructural critique, postprocessual archeology, material culture in a semantic field

Abstract

Although, back in the 1970s, Edmund Leach threatened archaeology that he will ‘poison’ it with structuralism, his structuralist work did not have that far reaching impact on the changes of archaeological interpretative paradigms. The reason for that is – on the one hand, structuralists’ lack of interest in diachronic interpretation, and on the other, the concept of the universal structures of mind for which upcoming poststructuralism did not have much interest. To be fair, there are some rather interesting structuralist interpretations in archaeology (even in the Serbian one) mostly based on the application of binary oppositions. However, in the broader context, structuralism, work of Levi-Strauss, and de Saussure linguistics in particular, enabled archaeologists to understand material culture in a semiotic field – as a study of signs and contexts of meanings. In other words, objects in archaeology, under the influence of structuralism, have been seen as organised in the wider systems of signs (organised in binary oppositions, but not necessarily) with particular meanings. One of the problems of this semiotic, structural approach in archaeology is that it automatically equates material culture and language, which is highly problematic, since meanings in material culture are rarely arbitrary in the way that it is the case in a linguistic relation between signifier and signified. Poststructuralism, theory of practices and poststructuralist critique of scientific positivism had much higher impact to archaeology, especially postprocessual one.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Arnold, D. 1983. Design Structure and Community Organization in Quinua, Peru, Structure and Cognition in Art, D. Washburn (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Babović, Lj. 2006. Svetilišta Lepenskog Vira. Mesto, položaj i funkcija. Beograd: Narodni muzej.

Borić, D. 2005. Body Metamorphosis and Animality. Volatile Bodies and Boulder Artworks from Lepenski Vir, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 15.

Fagan, B. 2001. In the Beginning, New Jersey.

Fletcher, R. 2006. Materiality, Space, Time and Outcome, A Companion to Archaeology, J. Bintliff (ed.), 110-140. London: Blackwell.

Harris, M. 2001. The Rise of Anthropological Theory. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.

Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hodder, I. 1982a. The Present Past. An Introduction to Anthropology for Archaeologists. London: Batsford.

Hodder, I. (ed.) 1982. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hodder, I. 1986. Reading the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hodder, I. 1990. The Domestification od Europe, Oxford.

Hodder, I. 1992. Theoretical archaeology: a reactionary view, Theory and Practice in Archaeology, Routledge, London. 101-121.

Hodder, I. 2005. Symbolic and structuralist archaeology, Archaeology, The Key Concepts, C. Renfrew and P. Bahn (eds.), 254-259. London: Routledge.

Hodder, I. et al. 2007. Revolution Fulfilled? Symbolic and Structural Archaeology a Generation On, Cambridge Archaeolgical Journal 17 (2): 199-228.

Leach, E. 1973. Concluding Address. The Explanation of Culture Change. Models in Prehistory, C. Renfrew (ed.), 761-771. London: Duckworth.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1968. Religije prethistorije, Zagreb: Naprijed.

Lič, E. 1972. Klod Levi-Stros. Beograd: NIP Duga.

McGhee, R. 1977. Ivory for the Sea Woman: The Symbolic Attributes of Prehistoric Technology. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 1: 141-159.

Olsen, B. 2002. Od predmeta do teksta. Teorijske perspektive arheoloških istraživanja, 184-187. Beograd: Geopoetika..

Pettit, P. 1975. The Concept of Structuralism. A Critical Analysis. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.

Radovanović, I. 1997. The Lepenski Vir Culture: a contribution to interpretation of its ideological aspects. In: Antidoron Dragoslav Srejović, A. Jovanović (ed.) Centar za arheološka istraživanja Filozofskog fakulteta, Beograd, 87-93.

Renfrew C. and P. Bahn, 1996. Archaeology, Theories, Methods and Practice, second edition, Thames and Hudson, London.

Wylie, A. 2002 Thinking from Things. Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Callifornia Press.
Published
2009-10-19
How to Cite
Palavestra, Aleksandar. 2009. “Structuralism in Archaeology”. Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology 4 (2), 137-48. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v4i2.8.

Most read articles by the same author(s)