Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T19:49:40.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relativism, objectivity and the politics of the past

Beyond caricature and polemics and towards a healthy archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Philip L. Kohl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In their jointly authored paper ‘Relativism, objectivity and the politics of the past’ which was published in Archaeological Dialogues 4.2 (1997, 164–184), the ‘Lampeter Archaeology Workshop’ argued that there has been an increasing tendency for authors to characterise ‘post-processualists’ as proponents of relativism, understood as the inability to evaluate different versions of the past or present. This naive view of relativism as ‘anything goes’ (known philosophically as judgemental relativism) was rejected in favour of a more nuanced understanding of different forms of relativism and the criteria which archaeologists can and do use to evaluate versions of the past. They also discussed the relationships between epistemologies, ethics and politics in this context, and suggested that there are implications for the ways we might engage in archaeological debates. This paper was commented on by the philosopher Diederick Raven and the archaeologists Ulrich Veit and Ian Hodder in Archaeological Dialogues 4.2 (1997, 185–194). Below, more comments are provided by the archaeologists Philip Kohl, Reinhard Bernbeck, Susan Pollock and John Bintliff. Finally, the Lampeter Ar

Keywords

relativismarchaeologypost-processualpoliticsdialogue
Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , July 1998 , pp. 30 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, B., 1994: Exodus, Critical inquiry 20, 314–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apel, K.-O., 1971: Szientistik, Hermeneutik, Ideologiekritik. Entwurf einer Wissenschaftslehre in erkenntnisanthropologischer Sicht, in Apel, K.-O., Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik, Frankfurt am Main, 7–44.Google Scholar
Arnold, B., 1990: The past as propaganda: totalitarian archaeology in Nazi Germany, Antiquity 64 (244), 464–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bahn, P., 1998: Iceman returns to italy. Police escort Ötzi home, Archaeology May/June, 26.Google Scholar
Bernbeck, R., and Pollock, S., 1996: Ayodhya, archaeology, and identity, Current anthropology 37 (Supplement), 138–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bintliff, J.L., 1988: A review of contemporary perspectives on the ‘meaning’ of the past, in Bintliff, J. (ed.), Extracting meaning from the past, Oxford (Oxbow Monograph 1), 2–36.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J.L., 1991: Post-modernism, rhetoric and scholasticism at TAG: the current state of British archaeological theory, Antiquity 65, 274–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bintliff, J.L., 1993: Why Indiana Jones is smarter than the Post-Processualists, Norwegian archaeological review, 26, 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bintliff, J.L., 1995: ‘Whither archaeology?’ revisited, in Kuna, M. and Venclova, N. (eds), Whither archaeology? Papers in honour of Evzen Neustupny, Prague, 24–35.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J.L., 1997: Catastrophe, chaos and complexity: the death, decay and rebirth of towns from Antiquity to today, Journal of European archaeology 5, 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, S., 1992: The ethics of discourse: Habermas, Lyotard and Rorty, in Connor, S., Theory and cultural value, Oxford, 102–132.Google Scholar
Danforth, L.M., 1995: The Macedonian conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world, Princeton (NJ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J., 1968: Erkenntnis und Interesse, in Habermas, J., Technik und Wissenschaft als ‘Ideologie’, Frankfurt am Main, 146–168.Google Scholar
Hassan, F., 1997: Beyond the surface: comments on Hodder's ‘reflexive excavation methodology’, Antiquity 71, 1020–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. (ed.), 1996: On the surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–5, London(British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara monographs 22).Google Scholar
Kohl, P., 1993: Limits to a post-processual archaeology (or, the dangers of a new scholasticism), in Yoffee, N. and Sherratt, A. (eds), Archaeological theory. Who sets the agenda? Cambridge, 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohl, P., 1988: Review of academic freedom and apartheid: the story of the World Archaeological Congress, Academe 74 (4), 40–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohl, P., and Fawcett, C. (eds) 1995a, Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kohl, P., and Fawcett, C., 1995b: Archaeology in the service of the state. Theoretical considerations, in Kohl, P. and Fawcett, C. (eds), Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology, Cambridge, 3–18.Google Scholar
Koselleck, R., 1979: Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Kus, S., 1989: Time is on my side, paper presented at the Wenner-Gren Foundation symposium ‘Critical approaches in archaeology: material life, meaning, and power’ Cascais, Portugal, 17–25 March 1989 (unpublished paper).Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1988: The pasteurization of France, Cambridge (MA).Google Scholar
Lowenthal, D., 1985: The past is a foreign country, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1996: Prehistory and the identity of Europe or, Don't lets be beastly to the Hungarians, in Graves-Brown, P., Jones, S. and Gamble, C. (eds), Cultural identity and archaeology. The construction of European communities, London, 125–137.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C., 1987: Re-constructing archaeology. Theory and practice, London.Google Scholar