Archaeological research is confusingly multiparadigmatic. The epistemology of archaeology (and anthropology) does not look at archaeological (or anthropological) data as such, but at the various, and often conflicting, ways data are handled in terms of the basic presuppostions of individual archaeologists. Even elementary archaeological concepts (such as “protoculture,” “site,” “intention,” “ritual”) and periodisations (“Ancients-Moderns,” “human adaptive grade”) are theory-laden and always part of a specific theoretical discourse. They are inextricably connected to other notions, rules, assumptions, values, and scenarios which occur in that specific discourse. The main theoretical/conceptual divide in archaeology and anthropology, connected with opposed views of the disciplinary identity of these disciplines, is that between, on the one hand, culturalist/interpretive (and cf. post-processual) approaches and, on the other hand, evolutionary (ecological, processual) ones.
Traditionally, the humanities and part of the human sciences apply culturalist, interpretive methods. These methods sit uneasily with explanatory strategies in the natural sciences in general and the life sciences in particular. Their – usually quite implicit view – is that humans, as self-conscious, free-willing an, as such, morally responsible beings, are essentially different from animals. What this stance is up against is an alternative conception of the human sciences which tends to subsume them under the evolutionary life sciences. The assumption here is that humans, although quite different from most other animals, are basically just another natural species, to be studied in the same, objective way as the rest of living nature. This assumption is connected to naturalistic positions in recent, mainly anglophone philosophy, while the first stance is much more influenced by mainstrream continental-European philosophy (and, to some extent, British analytical philosophy).
In this seminar we will study this epistemological and methodological divergence by critically discussing a recent monograph by Edward Slingerland. Slingerland argues for more stress on biological explanation from an “embodied cognition” perspective, stressing genetically programmed, modular cognitive and motivational dispositions, in line with “evolutionary psychology”, among other paradigms.
Following on from this more general epistemological part of the seminar, we will, secondly, analyze recent evolutionary approaches to religion against the background of more traditional (culturalist, functionalist, ecological) approaches and connect these to archaeological data and discussions. Much archaeological data reflects religious behaviour. Why do humans, unlike all other species, engage in religious behavior? What factors in our evolutionary history have favored religious practices? Is religion adaptive, or is it a non-adaptive side effect of adaptive behaviours? Recent work on the evolution of religion which sits uneasily with traditional culturalist approaches (cf. “Postprocessualism”) but complements and enriches functionalist interpretations in archaeology and anthropology.
Three authors whose work takes centerstage in recent research on the evolution of religion are Walter Burkert, Scott Atran, and Pascal Boyer (cf. their respective home pages, and cf. Daniel Dennett’s review of Burkert’s 1995 Creation of the Sacred in The Sciences 1997, p. 39 ff – on the web).
FOR A DETAILED WEEK-BY-WEEK SCHEDULE, PLEASE CONSULT THE BLACKBOARD MODULE “EPISTEMOLOGY OF ARCHAEOLOGY, FALL 2008
Learning objectives
*Being able to step back from a direct focus on data and to to critically reflect on one’s own ways of handling those data conceptually and theoretically (with the help of viewpoints from the epistemology and philosophy of science) *Awareness of theoretical and methodological divergences between, on the one hand, culturalist and interpretative approaches as typical for the traditional humanities and, on the other hand, causal and functionalist explanation in the natural and life sciences (cf. the monograph by Slingerland); *Being able to formulate and voice one’s own well-argumented opinion in discussions with others, in oral presentations (prefreably supported by Powerpoint), and on the Blackboard
Method of instruction
Lecture course with (obligatory) student assignments and (obligatory) weekly student comments on the Blackboard. Your presence is obligatory; you are allowed to miss a meeting once, but will have to compensate that with an 800 words paper on the subject matter you missed.
Examination
On the basis of obligatory presentation (on some part of the aforementioned literature) plus written examination for Research MA students; obligatory presentation (on the aforementioned literature) plus substantial paper for Ph D candidates; obligatory weekly postings to Blackboard on the weekly readings for all.
Required reading
- Slingerland, Ted, What Science Offers the Humanities: Integrating Body and Culture, New York etc: Cambridge University Press, 2008 (http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521701518). – A number of reviews of the two aforementioned monographs – At least one article on the evolution of religion by (each) Scott Atran, Pascal Boyer, and Walter Burkert (to be specified). – Sosis, Richard and Candace Alcorta 2003, “Signaling, Solidarity, and the Sacred: The Evolution of Religious Behavior”, Evolutionary Anthropology 12: 264-274; – Rossano, Matt 2005, “The religious mind and the evolution of religion”, Review of General Psychology 10: 346-364; – Sweek, Joel, 2002, “Biology of Religion.” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 14: 196-218. – A number of relevant items on Blackboard and on the internet (to be specified).