Theory in French Archaeology

Theory in French Archaeology
http://apollo5.bournemouth.ac.uk/tag97/france.htm

Chris Scarre
Theoretical archaeology in France and Britain

"It is now almost twenty years since Audouze and Leroi-
Gourhan described French archaeology as a 'Continental
insularity'. How far have attitudes to theoretical
archaeology changed in France during that period, and
how closely do those changes compare with trends in
British archaeology? The divergence between the two
traditions which was so pronounced in the 1960s and
1970s has steadily narrowed in the post-processualist
1980s and 1990s. Yet theory remains a much less
conspicuous feature of French archaeology and
fundamental differences in attitude remain. French writers
prominent in post-processualist archaeology in Britain
have generally exerted little influence on the archaeology
of their home country. One way of judging relations
between the two traditions is to consider the British
reaction to leading French archaeological publications
during the past 20 years. Valuable insight is also gained
by examining the changing role of theoretical
considerations in the mainstream literature of French
prehistory."

Talking of the insularity of French archaeology: earlier this
year I posted something ('Mesolithic French') about an
international conference where everyone talked and presented
papers in English, except the French.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anick Coudart
Why is there no post-processual archaeology in France?

"As a large part of its vocabulary has been borrowed from
French intellectuals, it may seem surprising that post-
processual archaeology has not had any impact in
France. The reasons for this are deeply rooted in French
society and identity, but are barely visible as they are
part of a double paradox.

Anglo-American scholars belong to an intellectual
tradition which is essentially empirical, based on
(sensory) experience; when confronted with an
incoherence they tend to consider their conceptual
approach inadequate rather than their observations. This
leads them to search continually for new concepts (which
agree better with their data).

As for the French intellectual, he/she moves in a
Cartesian tradition based on a reasoned and coherent
representation of things. Phenomena are governed by a
rationality complex and multidimensional, but which
forms an indivisible whole. If and when the result of an
analysis appears inconsistent, the French scholar will
tend to discount his/her observations ­ not as irrational,
but as unrepresentative. In order to confirm the abstract
vision which unconsciously forms the basis of his social,
political and intellectual identity, he or she permanently
reviews their data. As a result, the quest of Anglo-
American archaeologists for concepts and theories is
viewed with perplexity or condescension by the French;
and the French are seen by the Anglo-American as
forever bogged down in their data.

This French preoccupation with coherent conceptual
frameworks, and the fact that French society has never
been "modern", result in a situation in which, without
denying any of them, single binary relations (on which
every intellectual and mental construct, and every
creation of meaning are based) are always seen as
insufficient to render reality. In what are called /sciences
de l'homme et de la société/, the social dimension of
history has never ceased to be predominant; this
concerns equally those scholars who appeal to modernity
and those who initiated the concept of post-modernity.
For them, history or archaeology can only be the study of
the interactions between human beings, nature and the
diversity of other cultures.

For those French archaeologists who have managed to
grasp the notion of post-processualism, it appears part of
the history of an archaeology which is not theirs, or even
a respectable exoticism."

--
p.a.

.