Interpretive vs. Post Processual Anthropology

Paper Summary:

This paper examines how many people believe processual and interpretive archaeology to be completely different schools of thought. By looking at the seven main concepts of processual archaeology and the eight main concepts of interpretive archaeology, the writer demonstrates how they go hand in hand as well as complement each other. The example used is the origin of agriculture.

From the Paper:

"Though processual archaeology and interpretive archaeology appear to take different approaches to the study of the human past, they share a common end goal: to understand how societies came into being, how they developed and how they worked, all using data from the archaeological record. The two circles of thought each claim their distinctiveness from the other, but if we compare and contrast their main points, we will see how these two methods relate very closely. In other words, their main differences may just be in terms of scale of analysis. By examining the articles on the origins of agriculture (Redding; Richerson, Boyd, and Bettinger; Hayden; and Hodder) and the approaches of the authors in terms of processual vs. interpretive archaeology, we will see the strengths and weaknesses of each. Ultimately, this analysis will provide insight on how a combination of both fields may prove a more effective method for the study of the human past."

More papers on Interpretive vs. Post Processual Anthropology:

• Analytical Essay # 149901 : "Critical Vs. Post Modern Perspectives in Organisational Behaviour"
• Essay # 84761 : "Native vs. Non-native Anthropology"
• Analytical Essay # 5409 : "Times vs. Post"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: