Abstract
Symmetry is an epistemological and ethical principle developed in the social study of scientific practice. This essay connects a symmetrical archaeology to major trends in the discipline since the 1960s and to key components of archaeological practice - relational ontologies, mixtures of past and present, people and things, biology and culture, individual and society. Symmetrical archaeology is a culmination of effort in archaeology to undercut these modernist dualities and to recognize the vitality of the present past. Symmetry adds new force to the claim that archaeologists have a unique perspective on human engagements with things, on social agency and constructions of contemporary identity.
Key words
sociology of knowledge, material culture theory, science studies in archaeology
The notion of a symmetrical archaeology is a loose one, somewhat metaphorical, even evocative. It has links with philosopher and sociologist of science David Bloor's "symmetry principle" (1976) – that philosophers', historians' and sociologists' accounts of science should be impartial with respect to the truth or falsity, rationality or irrationality, success or failure of the scientific theories whose content is to be explained. This is to hold that the truth or rationality of "nature" (or any other object of interest such as "history") cannot speak for itself but needs representation and translation in the work of the scientist, in the process of debate around experiment, evidence and argument. A symmetrical archaeology, as we read in the accompanying papers in this journal, upholds such a methodological impartiality. This requires us not to presume that the way the past was will win through into our understanding because of the "force of evidence". Instead, the past has to be worked at. A successful account of the past is not so much a measure of accordance between the way things were and our archaeological account, as it is a personal and social achievement.
This is one of the major propositions of a symmetrical archaeology - that we need to look to the work of archaeologists in coming to understand the past.
A symmetrical archaeology also encompasses much more than this.
The notion of symmetry addresses the great divides and dualisms that have been so characteristic of archaeology since its modern crystallization in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as Julian Thomas has recently shown so effectively in his perceptive book on modernity and archaeology (2004; see also Schnapp, Shanks and Tiews 2004). For example, the radical separation of past (to be studied) and the contemporary location and viewpoint of archaeologists is one that regularly involves according primacy to the past. For the past, uncontrovertibly it would seem, can only have happened the way it did, and what did happen cannot be changed by the will of some later archaeologist. The objective reality of the past, so immediately present in archaeological remains, faces off the contemporary archaeologist possessed by a subjective will to know. Unbalanced and dualistic relationships, lacking symmetry, are also, in this modernist orthodoxy, maintained between science and popular superstition, between professional and popular archaeology, with, again, primacy usually being accorded to the expertise and knowledge of the professional (Shanks and Tilley 1987: 24-26; Binford 1987). For otherwise there is perceived the danger of knowledge of the past succumbing to myth and propaganda. Other familiar and now much discussed dualisms in archaeology include those between people and artifacts, biological species and cultural form, social structure and the individual agent. Many such relationships are conspicuously gendered. (See discussion in Hodder et al 1995.)
All archaeologists, whether they acknowledge it or not, negotiate these relationships in their daily practices. Much post-processual archaeology since the 1980s has been dedicated to exposing the relationships and correcting imbalances (see Hodder 2001, for example). This is why archaeologists became interested in cultural signification, as well as ecological relationship, in the meaning of things as well as economic exigency, in gender relationships, in agency, not as the search for the individual in (pre)history (as a counter to larger historical and environmental forces), but as the recognition that social structure is both the medium and outcome of (individual) motivated practices (see Barrett 1988 on this duality of structure, after Giddens 1984; compare also Callon and Law 1997).
People make history, but under inherited circumstances over which they have no immediate control; this is a central principle of Marxian historical materialism. The past has a material stake in contemporary life (Serres and Latour 1995: 57-62).
Beyond post-processual agendas, the politics of every archaeological practice, local planning through to national agenda, touristic experience to trade in illicit antiquities, are now thoroughly intertwined with matters methodological and theoretical, in a globalist convergence of historicity, heritage, tourist industry, and archaeological epistemology! (Shanks 2004, Webmoor 2007 for bibliography). And, it should be noted, attending to such intimate association was quite simply taboo only twenty five years ago.
In this new negotiation of dualistic relationships, symmetrical archaeology is not a new kind of archaeology. It is not a new theory. It is not another borrowed methodology. Less about critique of archaeology, symmetry simply summarizes what I see as fruitful angles on these archaeological relationships between past and present, people and things, biology and culture, individual and culture (see, for examples of contributions to these debates, DeMarrais, Gosden, Renfrew eds 2004; Ingold 2000; Knappett 2005).
Symmetrical archaeology is an attitude. Symmetry draws attention to mutual arrangement and relationship. Symmetry, in this mutuality, implies an attitude, that we should apply the same measures and values to ourselves as to what we are interested in (Latour 1989). A consonance of past and present, individual and structure, person and artifact, biological form and cultural value, symmetry is about relationships.
There are four components to this attitude: process, creativity, mediation, and distribution. I suggest these four components are quite counter-intuitive, at least to our conventional archaeological imagination.
As mentioned above, a successful account of the past is not so much a measure of accordance between the way things were and our archaeological account, as it is a personal and social achievement (Latour 1987). Archaeologists, under this attitude and understanding, do not discover the past. Archaeologists work on what is left of the past (Shanks 1992). And this process, of course, is something that takes us far beyond the academic discipline and profession (Schnapp, Shanks and Tiews 2004). An archaeological sensibility of attending to traces and remains is one that unites the discipline and profession with memory and many practices and cultures of collection (Schnapp 1993).
Archaeology is a process of mutual self-constitution, under this attitude. Working on the past makes us who we are. This is a dynamic process because there is no resolution; it just keeps on going. The process is iterative.
And there is thus a profound connection with design and making, with material culture studies. In this dynamic and mutual self-constitution of past and present, human and artifact, making things makes people (Shanks 2006: http://hotgates.stanford.edu:3455/TenThings/Home for a full bibliography on design studies).
Symmetry here also holds that we are not essentially different to those people and those remains we study. We are all bound up in different kinds of relationship with the materiality of the world, whether working to make artifacts, ourselves, or to forge narratives out of memory artifacts. There is a continuity between the processes of making that archaeologists study, and the archaeological process of working upon remains of the past (Lucas 2001).
This symmetrical archaeological process is profoundly creative. The past is not a datum, but an achievement. The past is the outcome of processes of uncovering and articulation, forging connections with and through the remains. The past is constantly being recreated because the past is a process, a trajectory, a genealogical relationship with present and future (Hodder 1999; Shanks 1998). This is simply to acknowledge that the past may only be revealed with hindsight, and that the past is not wholly encompassed by date, but flows and percolates through contemporary and future presence and effect (Serres and Latour 1995: 58). Such a creative process in no way compromises the ontology of the past - that it did happen (Shanks 1998). The creative and created past rather requires two connected acknowledgements. That the past did not end at some point, and that the past is what it was through connections that take the inquiring archaeologist beyond the confines of any particular and local context, into an anthropological and historical field of comparative examples and connections.
The past, in this attitude, is thus resource as much as source. Again, archaeologists do not discover the past, but treat the remains as a resource in their own creative (re)production or representation. And, as with any field of resources, this creative process of making the past what it is has its own politics. The politics of access and agency, of who is allowed to make what past and under what conditions (Shanks 2004 for issues and bibliography).
The creative process of working upon what is left of the past is one of translation and mediation, of metamorphosis, of turning the remains into something else. The archaeological site and its finds become text or image, account or catalogue, recombined into a museum exhibition, revised into the narrative of a synthetic text book or TV program, reworked into the rhetoric of a lecture course for an archaeological program.
It has long been recognized that publication is an essential component of the archaeological project, simply because the future of archaeology, of the past, is impossible, inconceivable, without the past being "recorded". Here, in a symmetrical attitude, this translation into medium is recognized as dynamic process. With "the past" existing in its re-presentation. With text being the process of inscription. With medium being the process of mediation (Shanks 2001). We can also call this a poetics (Shanks 1992).
And again, this directs attention to the politics of such processes. Representation is simultaneously inscription, witnessing and speaking for the past, in its absence, in circumstances of evaluation and judgment, connecting past event with contemporary understanding. Archaeology is a representative act, as much as the political representative speaks for their constituency (ibid; Joyce et al 2002).
And, as processes of making, our attention is directed to the material practices of reference, representation, and mobilization - how the site and its artifacts are transported into new and diverse environments, connections and ecologies that are not of the "original" context of the site and artifacts, yet which nevertheless allow that site and artifacts to be recognized, potentially, for what they were.
The recontextualization, the remediation of archaeological remains, which is the basis of their very recognition as the past, brings me to the fourth component of the symmetrical attitude. That the creative process of mediation is about connection and relations (Shanks 1999, Chapter 2 for a full treatment of this relationality in relation to the archaic Greek state).
The past becomes what it is through a trajectory of connections that take it far from its temporal origin in the chronometric past of dated location. The past is not to be seen as a datum under this symmetrical attitude, but as a network of relationships that continually reconstitute the past itself. This is just like memory. Memory is best conceived as memory work which only gains significance through recollection, the act of connecting memory trace with something now that prompts the reinsertion of that memory into our contemporary understanding, as we reevaluate the significance of the past in the light of what is happening to us now, through the past circulating around us, and so how we come to retell the past in a new way (Bowker 2005; and, as a contrast, Leroi-Gourhan 1993).
It is not only contextual archaeology that has recognized that understanding is contingent upon relationship, putting things in context (Hodder ed 1987). Consider the different contexts of connections involved in this symmetrical archaeology - trajectories from past through present that constitute a megalithic monument as what it is, the work of mediation that turns the site into another artifact of quite a different order even, yet mobilizes that very monument in real debates about the way prehistory happened. This symmetrical attitude implies a relational perspective that deals in networks and systems of distributed phenomena, heterogeneous networks, in the term coined by sociologist of technology John Law (1987), cultural ecologies that make a mockery of our accepted disciplines.
Symmetrical archaeology is not new discovery. It is not another "ism" for archaeologists to mimic. Its attitude, as I have briefly sketched it, has a distinctive and long genealogy. It is important to connect the symmetrical with a tradition of thinking that has made much of the four components of the symmetrical attitude. That this is an intellectual genealogy implies that there is continuity and connection without implying necessary identity or sameness.
So, behind the symmetrical, we can trace a Heideggerian line of interest in process rather than "being" that involves the likes of the pre-Socratic Herakleitos ("you can never put your hand into the same river twice") (see, in this context, Thomas 1996). Hegel's philosophy of internal relations, particularly as received by the early Marx, is another vital constituting moment (and see Randy McGuire's fine archaeological reception (1992) of this tradition). Nietzsche's own genealogical thinking, of course, is familiar, not least through Foucault's history of discourse. The deep and fundamental questioning of essentialist meaning by various western Marxists like Adorno and Benjamin is another familial connection. Bataille's anthropological interest in transgressive experience can be cited, as well as the deconstructive, Derridean focus upon systems of difference. (See Shanks 1992 for an archaeological treatment of these themes.)
I have already mentioned much recent work in science studies (after Kuhn) as contributing to this attitude; Bruno Latour is to be mentioned here. Then there is a prominent trend in the sociology and history of technology followed by the likes of Thomas Hughes, Donald Mackenzie, Pierre Lemonnier, Mike Schiffer and Michel Callon. Contemporary fine art sometimes spectacularly and subtly deals in material processes of human self-constitution and technical co-creation (Shanks 1992, 2001), as has been well recognized by Colin Renfrew (2003). And, ironically perhaps in this company, the fundamentals of systems thinking and information science acknowledge, of course, the significance of relational connection and of emergent behavior. This brings me to technoscience and posthumanist thought (in the humanities) - dismantling the essentialist distinctions between humans and machines (Hayles 1999).
And I do hope also that a symmetrical attitude is recognized in much of post-processual archaeology - from explorations of signification and the meaning of things through to focus upon socio-technical networks; my own work on the Greek city state (1995; 1996; 1999) can serve as a detailed introduction to the issues, concepts and the forms of its socio-cultural modeling.
So this is far from being another case of disciplinary borrowing. Symmetry is more a synthetic term that questions the character of disciplinary coherence and suggests some new kinds of cross-disciplinary articulation, some of which we have been pursuing in our Metamedia Lab at Stanford (metamedia.stanford.edu). Perhaps ultimately a symmetrical attitude hinges upon conceptions of historicity - what it is to be an historical agent. For its underlying premise is that historical process is best understood as the outcome of human creativity - a dispersed creativity belonging to collective assemblages that denies the conventional (Cartesian) distinctions between maker and artifact, design and realization, individual and cultural context.
Barrett. J. 1988. Fields of Discourse: reconstituting a social archaeology, Critique of Anthropology, 7: 5-16.
Binford, L. 1987. Data, relativism and archaeological science. Man 22(3): 391-404.
Bloor, D. 1976. Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge.
Bowker, G. 2005. Memory Practices in the Sciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Callon, M. and Law, J. 1997. After the individual in society: lessons on collectivity from science, technology and society. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 22(1): 165-82.
Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hayles, N.K., 1999. How We became Posthuman. Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Hodder, I. (ed.). 1987. The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hodder, I. (ed.). 2001. Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hodder, I., Shanks, M., Alexandri, A., Buchli, V., Carman, J., Last J. and Lucas, G. (eds), 1995: Interpreting archaeology. Finding meaning in the past, London.
Ingold, T., 2000: The Perception of the Environment. Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.
Joyce, R. (et al.) 2002. The Languages of Archaeology: Dialogue, Narrative, and Writing. Oxford: Blackwell.
Knappett, C. 2005. Thinking through Material Culture. An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Latour, B., 1987. Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. 1989. Clothing the naked truth. In Dismantling Truth: Reality in the Post-Modern World (eds H. Lawson and L. Appignanesi). New York: St Martin’s Press.
Law, J. 1987. Technology and heterogeneous engineering: the case of Portuguese expansion. In The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (eds W.E Bijker, T.P. Hughes and T.J. Pinch). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111-34.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1993. Gesture and Speech. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Lucas, G., 2001. Critical Approaches to Fieldwork. Contemporary and Historical Archaeological Practice. London: Routledge.
McGuire, R. 1992. A Marxist Archaeology. San Diego: Academic Press.
Renfrew, C., 2003. Figuring it out. What are we? Where do we come from? The parallel Visions of Artists and Archaeologists. London: Routledge.
Schnapp, A. 1993. La conquête du passé. Aux origines de l'archéologie. Paris: Le livre de Poche Editions Carré.
Schnapp, J., Shanks, M. and Tiews, M. (eds) 2004. Archaeologies of the Modern, a special issue of Modernism/Modernity, 11(1).
Serres, M. and Latour, B. 1995. Conversations on Science, Culture, and Time. (trans. R. Lapidus). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Shanks, M. 1992. Experiencing the Past. On the Character of Archaeology. London: Routledge.
Shanks, M. 1995. Art and an archaeology of embodiment: some aspects of archaic Greece. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 5: 1–38.
Shanks, M. 1996. Classical archaeology of Greece. Experiences of the discipline, London: Routledge.
Shanks, M. 1998. The life of an artefact, Fennoscandia archaeologica 15, 15-42.
Shanks, M. 1999. Art and the Greek City State: An Interpretive Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shanks, M. 2001. Culture/archaeology: the dispersion of a discipline and its objects. In Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 284-305.
Shanks, M. 2004. Archaeology and Politics. In A Companion to Archaeology. (ed J. Bintliff). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 490-508.
Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1987. Re-Constructing Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J. 1996: Time, Culture, and Identity, London: Routledge.
Thomas, J. 2004. Archaeology and Modernity. London: Routledge.
Webmoor, T. 2007. Reconfiguring the Archaeological Sensibility: A Case Study of Teotihuacan. Mexico. Doctoral Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Stanford University.