Archaeologists, it is time to listen!

Abstract

whether itwouldbepossible toexplore thehumanityandhumannessof thepast bymeansofobserving performance on the material constraints. It is certainly true that such a detailed and delicate observation/examination on performance with relation to material constraints would contribute to a better understanding of humanity andhumanness.However, I feel that other factors – such as habitus incarnated intobodyorstructuralproperties inmemoryorevenstockofknowledge–whichare inheritedby memory and its negotiationbetween generation andwhich also become grounds for (historical) intersubjectivity and we-relation (Schutz and Luckmann 1973, 1983), are important. It is questionable whether the observation on performance withinmaterial constraints could be harmonized, conflicted and compromised with habitus, structural properties and stock of knowledge, and whether we can interpret the relations between those factors in archaeological practice. Barrett also suggests a ‘bottom up’ approach rather than a ‘top down’ one, saying that history has always been made by diverse practices that are lived both temporally and spatially and also that history is a process that was created from the bottom up and from the accumulation of local performance. His approach, to me, seems so enlightened and feasible since most of archaeological interpretation on the past society so far tends to emphasize the centre, core, elite, ritual, etc., rather than the periphery, boundary, the commoner, daily life, etc. Moreover, as Barrett points out, it cannot be denied that numerous past societies have been categorized by simple and few criteria (as mentioned above) into several types of societies. I believe that it is so important to look closely into how power could be activated and exercised in actual situations in which the material would condition and/or enable human performance and, at the same time, humans would perform or leave the trace of possibilities of performance within those material constraints in various ways. However, I think his interest in humanness and performance does not necessarily mean that he would ignore ‘traditional issues’ in social archaeology. It is still important to understand the process of growing centrality, concentration of population, long distance exchange or trading systems to trigger the evolution of a past society and to maintain this. I feel that Barrett’s ‘bottom up’ approach could/should be pondered in archaeological practice and interpretation. However, this does not necessarily mean that history is only composed of this ‘micro-history’ or ‘bottom up’ approach. Therefore, it would be ideal if we could find more ways and routes to interlink these two different approaches harmoniously or even sometimes contradictorily.