New Archaeology

New Archaeology
Heironymous Rowe (talk). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · source
Name	New Archaeology
Period	Mid-20th century
Country	United States

New Archaeology New Archaeology emerged in the mid-20th century as a movement seeking to transform archaeological practice through scientific methods, systematic theory, and explicit hypothesis testing. Advocates argued for connections to broader intellectual currents and institutions, referencing debates in University of Chicago departments, the influence of Bureau of American Ethnology, and interactions with scholars from Harvard University and University of Cambridge. The movement prompted controversies across field projects in North America, Mesoamerica, Andes, Near East, and Europe.

Background and Origins

Origins trace to work in the 1950s and 1960s at sites associated with Pecos Conference, the institutional setting of Smithsonian Institution, and discussions in journals linked to Royal Anthropological Institute and Society for American Archaeology. Influential institutional contexts included field schools sponsored by Peabody Museum, collaborative projects tied to National Science Foundation, and methodological debates at meetings of American Anthropological Association. Intellectual antecedents drew on research traditions from Lewis Binford’s affiliations with University of Michigan and theoretical exchanges involving scholars at University of California, Berkeley, University College London, and University of Arizona.

Theoretical Principles and Methodology

The movement emphasized explanatory goals and the application of scientific reasoning, adopting practices from quantitative programs at Carnegie Institution for Science, modeling approaches influenced by work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and statistical techniques promoted by researchers affiliated with American Philosophical Society. Its methodological toolkit included system models, formal hypothesis testing, comparative cross-site analysis, and use of ecological frameworks developed in collaboration with scholars from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Field methods incorporated stratigraphic control at projects sponsored by British Museum, use-wear analysis in laboratories connected to Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, and experimental replication informed by contacts at Royal Society workshops.

Key Figures and Contributions

Prominent proponents participated in institutions such as University of New Mexico, University of Washington, and University of Pennsylvania. Major figures linked to the movement include researchers whose work intersected with programs at MIT, Brown University, and Duke University; these scholars introduced formal models, processual frameworks, and new excavation standards used at sites associated with Mesa Verde National Park, Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site, and Chaco Culture National Historical Park. Contributions extended into ceramics analysis, faunal studies, and settlement pattern research employed in projects funded by National Endowment for the Humanities and coordinated through partnerships with American Museum of Natural History.

Major Case Studies and Applications

Influential applications occurred in investigations at Great Basin, Mississippi Valley, Valley of Oaxaca, Copán, and Nabta Playa where processual methods reinterpreted cultural sequences. Regional programs in Anatolia, Levant, Mediterranean Sea islands, and Scandinavia adopted systematic survey strategies pioneered by teams associated with Institute of Archaeology, London and Australian National University. Large-scale settlement pattern studies at Teotihuacan, Angkor, and Mohenjo-daro illustrated comparative uses of demographic modeling, while landscape approaches informed conservation efforts with agencies like UNESCO and World Monuments Fund.

Criticisms and Debates

Critics from departments at University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, and Yale University argued that the movement’s emphasis on positivist science overlooked symbolic systems identified by peers from Columbia University, Princeton University, and University of Chicago. Feminist scholars associated with Barnard College and postcolonial theorists linked to SOAS University of London contested its treatment of agency and indigenous perspectives, prompting methodological responses from researchers at Stanford University and University of California, Los Angeles. Debates also involved funding and ethics overseen by National Park Service and legal frameworks such as policies administered by Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Influence on Subsequent Archaeological Practice

Later developments incorporated selective elements into eclectic programs at University of Pennsylvania Museum, Smithsonian Institution, and regional centers in Latin America and Africa. Cognitive and post-processual approaches emerging from research networks at University of Edinburgh, University of Leiden, and Uppsala University reacted to earlier emphases, while computational archaeology initiatives at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and university computing centers carried forward modeling traditions. Institutional legacies persist in accreditation standards of the Society for Historical Archaeology, continuing training at field schools sponsored by National Science Foundation grants and collaborative curation practices promoted by International Council on Monuments and Sites.

Category:Archaeology