Indiana Jones and the Post-Processual Archaeologists
Everyone else is linking to the trailer, so I’ll link to a paper from The Norwegian Archaeological Review, ‘Why Indiana Jones is Smarter Than the Post-Processualists’ by John Bintliff.
The most remarkable feature of this latest conference was the way in which speaker after speaker, British and Continental, displayed a total disregard for affiliation to ‘Processualist’ or ‘Post-Processualist’ factions, and deployed an eclectic attitude to the various objectivist and subjectivist approaches debated over in the last 20 years. Yet equally consistently, this merger of formerly oppositional traditions within a new pragmatics of practice, saw the speaker grounding his or her feet on evidence, an archaeological record, testability.
It dates from 1993, but has stood up well. The persistence of processual and post-processual camps in archaeology and earnest discussion of them says much more about the social relationships between archaeologists than it does about the past.
I need to read more Wittgenstein.