Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:50:56.458Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Romanticism, nationalism, and archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2009

Philip L. Kohl
Affiliation:
Wellesley College, Massachusetts
Clare Fawcett
Affiliation:
St Francis Xavier University, Nova Scotia
Get access

Summary

European thought has been dominated for over 200 years by a pervasive dichotomy between rationalism, universalism, and positivism on the one hand and romanticism, particularism (or “alterity”), and idealism on the other. The first of these philosophical packages was initially associated with French liberalism, the second with German reaction (Dumont 1991). Both ethnic nationalism and post-modernism (which in archaeology is the essence of post-processualism) are products of the romantic side of this polarity.

Archaeology, idealism, and relativism

Post-processualism remains a minority position in archaeology, but derives considerable prestige from the preeminence of post-modernism in comparative literature and its dissemination throughout the humanities and social sciences (Hunt 1989; Laudan 1990; Rose 1991). Post-processualism propagates the idea that, because every decoding of a message is another encoding, all truth is subjective (Tilley 1990:338). It thereby transforms relativism into an absolute principle. Because of this, many post-processualists conclude that there is no difference between knowledge and faith and further deny the validity of distinguishing science from magic and religion (Barnes 1974, 1977). Archaeologists such as Shanks and Tilley have concluded that the only goal of their research can be a political one (Shanks and Tilley 1987a:195). In their view, the aim of archaeological discourse should be to disempower political and intellectual elites by affirming the relativism, and hence the equal validity, of all explanations of the past (Bapty and Yates 1990; Shanks 1992; Shanks and Tilley 1987a, 1987b, 1989; Tilley 1990, 1991; Ucko 1990).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1996

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.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×