Processual vs Post-processual Archaeology — Key Concepts

The field moves from simply documenting artifact chronologies to a more science-based, hypothesis-driven approach (the $1960s$ , often called the new archaeology).
Two main frameworks: processual archaeology (scientific, generalizable explanations) vs post-processual archaeology (interpretive, context-specific, focus on meaning and experience).
CRM (cultural resource management) emerges in the $1960s$ with regulations to assess impacts to archaeological resources; research design and standardized methods become common.

Antiquarians and avocational archaeologists pursued mound origins and artifact chronologies; focus on excavating and building timelines.
Influences from geology and evolutionary biology; early ideas tied culture to environmental changes and adaptive strategies.
By the $1900s$ , stratigraphic excavation and artifact sequences were refined; researchers asked about developmental differences among Native American groups.
Early 20th century: large-scale ethnography
- Anthropologists/archaeologists documented Native elders and sites to preserve histories facing colonization and displacement.
- Julian Steward and others emphasized dynamic relationships between humans and environments (cultural ecology).

1960s shift: adopt scientific methods to test hypotheses about how and why people organized themselves around resources.
Core ideas of processual archaeology:
- Hypothesis-driven research with a standardized, repeatable data collection process.
- Cross-site comparability: data designed to be collected and analyzed similarly across places.
- Use of natural sciences (radiocarbon dating, chemistry, early DNA work) to test cultural-historical claims.
Lewis Binford and processual theory: use ethnographic analogies (e.g., hunter-gatherer groups) to formulate testable hypotheses about past behavior.
Research design becomes integral: planning excavations, surveys, data collection, and analysis aimed at testing specific questions.

1960s–90s: CRM efforts in the US lead to large-scale surveys, like the $41$ -mile survey in Central Arizona (Pinal and Maricopa Counties).
Goals in arid landscapes:
- Understand how people used water resources and interacted with desert environments.
- Track seeable sites and their locations relative to rivers, washes, and ephemeral water channels.
Methodology in practice:
- Systematic pedestrian survey with fixed distances, bearings, and GPS/maps.
- Document site locations, artifacts, features, and ecological context to build a landscape-level picture.
Limits of processual approach in CRM:
- While it documents where sites are, it struggles to directly infer why people acted as they did.

Critics argued archaeology cannot be completely objective; researchers bring biases and cultural backgrounds.
Post-processual emphasis:
- Focus on meanings, symbolism, and the phenomenology of past experiences.
- Recognize diversity: different sites and regions require unique interpretations; avoid overgeneralization.
- Greater inclusion of local communities and indigenous knowledge in interpretation.
- Ethnography becomes a tool to understand past lifeways more deeply and ethically.
Practical shift in CRM questions:
- Still use systematic recording, but now ask about symbolism, utility, and social meanings of artifacts and foods.
- Involve Native American communities as knowledge bearers to interpret material remains.
- Combine archaeological data with ethnographic methods to enhance interpretation and public relevance.
Public good and ethics:
- Archaeology viewed as a means to support communities, land management, water policy, and equitable engagement with tribal and local groups.

Acknowledgement that archaeologists help shape interpretations and boundaries of sites; not merely passive observers.
Emphasis on collaboration with living communities to maintain connections to land and heritage.
Ongoing aim: use findings to inform decisions about land, water, and social relations, especially for communities historically disenfranchised from their heritage.

Jason De Leon: director of the Cotson Archaeological Center at UCLA; work in the US–Mexico borderlands.
Project addresses migration and border policies through archaeological methods and theory.
Content note: some material can be sensitive; viewers are advised to engage with care.
Broader significance: demonstrates how archaeology can illuminate contemporary social issues and inform policy discussions.

Continued emphasis on public good, community engagement, and shared authority over interpretation.
Increasing use of traditional knowledge alongside scientific data.
Recognition that archaeology is one of many ways of knowing the past; collaboration across disciplines and communities is essential.
Next topics: ethical questions in fieldwork, representation, and partnerships with Indigenous and marginalized communities.