UTokyo Repository 東京大学

UTokyo Repository >
114 人文社会系研究科・文学部 >
22 考古学 >
東京大学文学部考古学研究室研究紀要 >

このページ(論文)をリンクする場合は次のURLを使用してください: http://hdl.handle.net/2261/4365

タイトル: 「シンボリック・アーケオロジー」の射程 : 1980年代の考古学の行方
その他のタイトル: Symbolic Archaeology : A New Vista for the 1980's
著者: 後藤, 明
著者(別言語): Goto, Akira
発行日: 1983年8月16日
出版者: 東京大学文学部考古学研究室
掲載誌情報: 東京大学文学部考古学研究室研究紀要. 第2号, 1983.8, pp. 293-309
抄録: Over the past 20 years, "new archaeology" based on a view of culture as an adaptive device, has contributed to the advancement of functional and evolutionary-ecological methods in the f field. But at the beginning of the 1980's there seems to be a reaction to what is now percieved as an over-emphasis on the material, behavioral or functional aspects of culture. Several papers by Hodder and his students (Hodder 1982), and a recent paper by Leone (1982), argue that we should reevaluate the importance of the mental and symbolic aspects of man, and the historical context of culture. These archaeologists seem to share several assumptions: that all objects in a culture are equally important in regard to overall organi-zation of that culture, and that all objects are shaped by a fundamentally mental structure (as well as primary use) which shapes social organization, myth, etc.. Some of them are more specifically concerned with structural analysis of archaeological materials and adopt its analytical criteria such as syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships, binary opposition, etc.. Recently some Japanese archaeologists have also tried to reconstruct prehistoric social orga-nization and cosmology on the basis of several kinds of materials such as mortuary practice, settlement form, pottery decoration, etc.. This symbolic approach in archaeology, or "symbolic archaeology", will contribute to the construction of a holistic perspective in the archaeological study of man and culture. I-iow-ever, there are certain problems in the use of this approach as a research methodology. One problem is that the relationship between the symbolic/ideological aspect and the behavioral/ecological, aspect of a culture is very debatable. Each archaeologist interested in this approach should clarify his position (eg. Cultural Meterialism, Marxist Perspective, etc.) Another problem is how to test the validity of a symbolic structure and how to inquire into actual social relationships which, according to some archaeologists, are often misrepre-sented by the symbolic aspects of material culture. Third problem is how to introduce atemporal theory (eg. Levi-Strauss's structuralism) to archaeology which is essentially a. diachronic discipline, without following "Pompeii premise" (Binford 1981). Though "symbolic archaeology" has, several problems, it is my conclusion that the recent proposal for use of symbolic approach presents a stimulating new vista for archaeologists who are seeking more comprehensive theory and method in the study of culture.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/2261/4365
ISSN: 02873850


ファイル 記述 サイズフォーマット
KJ00004312265.pdf1.25 MBAdobe PDF見る/開く



Valid XHTML 1.0! DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2010  Duraspace - ご意見をお寄せください