"From the particular, one can carefully and boldly move up to the
general; The relation between the grand scenario of history, on one hand, and local and particular
developments, on the other, is one of the most hotly debated issues in Social Sciences and
Humanities. At times, one of the two aspects tends to dominate the debate. To a certain
extent, the so-called “postmodern” phenomenon stressed the particular, and today there are
some tendencies towards a renewed interest in the big scenario. However, this is not clear-cut;
but is a rather complex issue. For instance, a particularistic and constructionist vision may
be as deterministic and essentialist as any general scenario of human development.
What is general and particular is not pre-given;
it depends on our research focus and the problems we address. Microarchaeology is a tool-box of concepts and perspectives developed
as a conscious and coherent approach to this complex set of issues.
In order to make archaeology a viable means for addressing social theory and the complexity
of social life, it is important to retrieve more detailed and complex information from the
fragmented sources. We must, simply, be better at exploiting the potential information content
of our sources. This can only be achieved by detailed small-scale studies. Microarchaeology is thus a “from the bottom up” approach rather than a “from the top
down approach”. Instead of departing from large scale pre-given entities (cultures, etnicities etc), microarchaeology start
from the local setting, working upwards towards looking for generalities (see fig below).
Such an approach focuses on social practice, or bundles of
related practices, as a mediating level between the local and particular on one hand and the normative and general on the other.
Such identified bundles (or phases) constitute more relevant points of departure for comparisons with phases of other sites,
thus facilitating a more nuanced discussion on periods of contact and hybridisation between different social groups.
A schematic illustration of the traditional top-down perspective and the microarchaeological approach.
Left: The dotted arrows refer to the lesser impact of individual sites on the general idea of a culture, time period or region.
Right: new and old information from individual sites are equally important for the continuous reconstruction of a general fiction (i.e., image, idea or preconception) of a time-space section.
Introduction
from general theories, there is no way of looking at the
particular."
Leopold von Ranke
Theoretical and methodological basis
The theoretical basis for Microarchaeology is a combination of strands of thought, most notably Sartre’s
theory of serial action, Foucault’s ‘archaeology’, the structuration theory of Giddens’, Homi Bhabha’s
concept of the ‘third space’ and Slavoj Zizek’s notion on ideology. The theoretical foundation is thus
neither processual nor postprocessual in character, but build upon poststructuralist theory enhanced
with a necessary touch of constructionism. The constructionist element is essential in order to prevent
the analysis to focus too hard on the homogeneous and structural aspects of social life. The structurating
process, as pointed at by Giddens and Sartre among others, mediates between structural and material
conditions and individual experience and motivation. The focus on action thus allows us to override
static notions of structural constraints versus individual experience. Social practice of a situation
is in different respects a result of the properties of the particular situation, but these cannot be seen as
necessarily unique, as they also include traditions, institutionalised power relations and other aspects of the outside world.
The methodology of microarchaeology is quite basic and does not differ much from normal archaeological procedure. Rather, we insist on an intensified interest in what archaeology has produced in terms of method and technique, and in the need of new developments. From a traditional point of view, the normal way to approach a locale or time period is to discuss how the place in question relates to other contemporary locales with similar attributes. From a microarchaeological standpoint, however, the critical question is rather to determine the relations between practices performed at the locale it self. The basic idea is to do a number of independent studies of a number of locales and then relate the similarities and differences of identified practices in order to reach a larger frame (see fig. above). A first step in the small-scale studies is to establish relations between events in order to get at the internal development at each site. We need to find some sort of relational chronology of practices, or bundles of practices, in order to make use of as much information as possible (and to grasp social variability, including the queer and strange). By doing this, we can trace changes, internal variation on a much more detailed scale than by the traditional approach. But this approach must not be confused with particularistic studies of separate locales. The point of departure is the relation between chains of actions and repetitive events analysed in terms of relations between the particular and the general. The aim is thus not only to define specificity, but rather to employ small-scale analysis in order to get at large-scale patterns and processes. For more detailed discussion on the theory and method of microarchaeology, see e.g.: