Andrew Fleming

Post-processual Landscape Archaeology: a Critique

Post-processual theorists have characterized landscape archaeology as practised in the second half of the twentieth century as over-empirical. They have asserted that the discipline is sterile, in that it deals inadequately with the people of the past, and is also too preoccupied with vision-privileging and Cartesian approaches. They have argued that it is therefore necessary to ‘go beyond the evidence’ and to develop more experiential approaches, ‘archaeologies of inhabitation’. This article argues that such a critique is misguided, notably in its rejection of long-accepted modes of fieldwork and argument and in its annexation of Cosgroves rhetoric. ‘Post-processual’ landscape archaeology has involved the development of phenomenological approaches to past landscapes and the writing of hyper-interpretive texts (pioneered by Tilley and Edmonds respectively). It is argued that phenomenological fieldwork has produced highly questionable ‘results’. Some of the theoretical and practical consequences of adopting post-processual landscape archaeology are discussed; it is concluded that the new approaches are more problematic than their proponents have allowed. Although new thinking should always be welcomed, it would not be advisable to abandon the heuristic, argument-grounded strengths of conventional landscape archaeology.

Megaliths and post-modernism. The case of Wales

Eleven years ago, Christopher Tilley published A phenomenology of landscape: places, paths and monuments (1994). It has become a much-cited book. Tilley took the archaeology of landscape in a new direction, presenting a mode of field observation designed to explore his ethnographically based, persuasive characterisation of Neolithic sacred geography. He presented three case studies, two of which concerned the megalithic chamber tombs of south-west and south-eastWales. He suggested that significant numbers of thesemonuments were designed to refer to prominent hills, rock outcrops and watercourses, thus apparently offering evidence-based insights into Neolithic cosmological perceptions. Five years later, I argued that Tilley’s findings could not be regarded as sustainable contributions to Welsh Neolithic studies (Fleming 1999). More recently, in Places of Special Virtue (2004), written with Alasdair Whittle, Vicki Cummings has adopted Tilley’s approach – with equally problematic consequences. I feel that I must now expound my critique at greater length. I will deal mostly with south-west Wales, and will use the abbreviation ‘TC’ to refer to the Tilley–Cummings approach where appropriate, abbreviating ‘Cummings and Whittle’ to CW.