Questions of Doom: Processual Vs. Post Processual: The Great Schism?

[alflayla5]

Funnily enough, I found any of these two approaches very useful when they were criticising the other and whenever they were addressing the issues that the other approach did not address, that is, when they saw beyond the lenses of the 'opposite' approach. I guess any point of view is crazy when taken to a 'fundamentalist' extreme, but useful to complement other points of view. NB Disney-professorship LOL!!!!!!!!

[Slascus]

Thanks, I really appreciate these videos. After a 10 hour reading bonanza it's great to be able to close your eyes, lean back, listen, and still not loose valuable time!

[Archaeos0up]

@Slascus Thanks for your comment!

I am glad you find archaeosoup useful! I remember the time-pressures at Uni, good luck in your studies!

Thanks for watching :)

[stickerhppy]

*main objective

[stickerhppy]

If you want to compare the two methods go to Ian Hodder's website of the Catalhoyuk excavation in Turkey and compared it with Lewis Binford's works.

I was lucky enough to have Binford's first student to become my professor in my university. hehe

[stickerhppy]

@MeganMcken Processualism is an archaeological movement/method headed by Lewis Binford in the 1960s and its main is to do archaeology in a positivist manner meaning using science and its branches to create and analyzing archaeological data.

While post-processualism started in 1980s with Ian Hodder as one of the leading archaeologist to propose it. He noticed that scientific approaches is not enough to analyze archaeological data so he added many disciplines out side science in interpreting.

[MeganMcken]

can you describe more clearly about what processualism and post-processualism are.