ÿþ<? require "../proj_header.php" ?><? print_head("teorarch-2","New Archaeology - v.2"); 

?>



<div id="content">

<h1>Summary</H1>



<P>The Foreword of the book explains why the book is so entitled, what is the formula to which it refers and why it was Malmer in particular that attracted the author s attention.  Montelius formula  refers to Montelius  often overlooked structure of typological method: Malmer is the scholar who perfected this method though he did not realise its typological nature. Having handed The New Archaeology over to its Russian publisher, the author then decided to make clear the contribution of a forerunner and harbinger of the New Archaeology who in Russia is relatively little known. The book on Malmer was written long ago but like the book on the New Archaeology it was difficult to publish in the Soviet Union. Now it is possible, but of course some revisions have been made.</P>

<P>There are nine chapters.</P>

<P>Ch. I. Swedish rationalism and the revolution in archaeology. In this chapter, Mats Malmer is compared to J.-C. Gardin of France. Both are heralds of modernisation of archaeological methodology and both, as distinct from the exponents of New Archaeology, followed neo-rationalism rather than a neo-positivist philosophy. Rationalism put down roots in France and Sweden from the 17th cent. In Sweden it (like geography) impacted upon archaeological Diffusionism, in the tradition of Montelius. It was in this environment that Malmer was formed as a scholar. Probably day-to-day communication with his wife Brita, the renowned archaeologist and numismatist, encouraged his inclination towards exact calculations and formulations. Numismatics had earlier impacted upon archaeology (i.e. it seeded the notion  type  and the idea of gradation).</P>

<P>The question is raised as to why the laurels of the New Archaeology s founders did not fall to the lot of Gardin and Malmer, although their work predates that of Binford and Clarke. As Malmer published his main works in German and English, the language barrier was not a factor, rather it was his methodology itself that was for some reason unpopular.</P>

<P>Aside from Malmer s methodology, of special interest to Russian readers is the putative kinship of Swedish-Norwegian battle-axe culture (Malmer s subject matter) with the Fatyanovo culture of Russia.</P>

<P>Ch. II. Work and struggle of Malmer. Here Malmer s principal monographs are summarised and the principles of his methodology are exposed. It is shown that his enormous contribution to the discipline has aroused an ambiguous reaction in the archaeological community. Yet Malmer struggled continually and determinedly for the acceptance of his methodological principles.</P>

<P>His methodical armoury included very elegant methods of cartographic study, adopted from the Lund geographical school: including the isarythmic method based on a hexagonal net and the solution of problems of inner source criticism by the reduction of absolute figures to relative within the same hexagons. These are just some of his methodological innovations. Others are described in following chapters.</P>

<P>Ch. III. Rehabilitation of typology. Malmer s approach sees typology as the pivot of archaeological work, and he makes a good case for this. Yet Malmer confuses two things: a) typology as a way of ordering the material and revealing its pattern and b) the Montelian typological method aimed at establishing continual succession and relative chronology. He considers types as sharply delimited classes. The author contrasts this with his own approach distinguishing typology and classification where the terms  types  and  typical ,  class  and  classical  retain their usual meaning. In the author s opinion, classification relies upon distinctive grouping of the material " clear divisions and unblended attributes; whilst typology tolerates blurred borders, and dim or not fully discernible units. Classes are like boxes in a catalogue cube, while types are ideals " images toward which particular items gravitate. Malmer did not fully comprehended Montelian typology.</P>

<P>The dealing with typological studies helps to solve the question as to which group of disciplines archaeology belongs. Malmer suggests that archaeology belongs neither to sciences nor to humanities, but to some third group of disciplines. The crucial role of typology in archaeological studies allows us to determine this place more exactly.</P>

<P>Typology is a key to understanding the source-study nature of archaeology, as a discipline close to criminology in its methods: the archaeologist is a detective who has arrived at the scene of events some thousand years too late.</P>

<P>Ch. IV. Typological series and assemblage. Malmer s greatest contribution to archaeological theory is the perfection of the Montelian typological method. This method is based not on the idea of evolution as is often thought but on the idea of gradation (Montelius was a Diffusionist rather than an Evolutionist). Types are arranged into a typological series   via ranks of gradation: ABCDEFG. Yet his formula is not so simple. In order to avoid this arrangement being made according to a chance criterion (it is possible, for example, to arrange potatoes from round to oblong), Montelius invented a safeguard against randomness, namely, the chronological coincidence of beginnings (and middles and ends) of some parallel series. Coincidence was established by occurrences of similar artefacts in parallel assemblages. Thus, the gradation-typological method required the use of assemblages. However, assemblages are not always present.</P>

<P>Malmer found a way to overcome this problem. He constructed gradation series not of artefact types but of attributes. The artefact itself takes the place of an assemblage. The only requirement is that the attributes used for these series should be functionally independent on each other. That is to say, they should not change in a natural and indispensable conjunction with each other.</P>

<P>Ch. V.  Rationalism  versus  impressionism . Malmer found the state of contemporary archaeology depressing: inferences are made by intuition; terminology is inexact; measurements of artefacts and clear distinctions between concepts are lacking; archaeologists do not know how to use logic. Instead of clear definitions vague descriptions are used in conjunction with characteristics, indications or illustrations. Malmer calls this tradition  impressionism  because impressions take the place of scientific inferences.</P>

<P>Malmer contrasts this to what he calls  rationalism    from the Latin  ratio    reason. He does not make clear that he is inspired by the philosophical methodology that originates with Descartes and that was developed by Swedish philosophers, in particular by Hägerström. They insisted upon the utmost importance of definitions, and Malmer makes this a principal feature of his methodology. Each term should receive a strict definition. Malmer formulates the requirements of a good definition the main one of which is: a definition has to take priority, the study begins with it   without a definition there is no type. The type appears as soon as the definition is made. So definition must not come about as the result of the processing of the material, rather it is its beginning. That means, according to Malmer, that type is and must be conditional and relative " it is proved by nothing. Type is constructed by the archaeologist.</P>

<P>Ch. VI.  Rationalism  versus  empiricism . Here Malmer turns to confront another adversary   he advances against those who holds that types are present in the material, that they exist in it a priori and that one only has to reveal them as skilfully as possible. Such a position Malmer calls  empiricism , somewhat shifting the usual meaning of the term. (Conventionally,  empiricism  is the reliance upon experience, while the belief in the objective existence of the real world beyond our perception is  materialism ). Strictly speaking, Malmer does not doubt in the objective existence of real objects, artefacts and monuments. He doubts only the possibility of recreating the exact primordial grouping of these real objects. He supposes that the similarities and differences of them are so multitudinous that we are left without a clue as to how to isolate the most essential among them.</P>

<P>His position is quite natural since he has at his disposal only a rigid analytical classification (that consists only in the isolation of elementary properties) and not a typology. As a result he can reproduce the multiform relations and connections in the material only via the faceted classification that he calls  declension . This is the only approach to typology that is open to the investigator using his methodology, while the proper grouping of attributes into types, and types into cultures, relies solely upon correlation.</P>

<P>Malmer has no effective arguments against  empiricism . For receiving them he uses Forde s model instead, but this is a relative model. In real life correspondences to it are highly limited.</P>

<P>The application of relative types is limited, too: they are applicable only in those fields and beyond those limits where the proper division of material comes to its end (is further impossible).</P>

<P>Ch. VII. From type to period. Montelius resorted to types, not classes, for as he was interested in continual succession, he looked for intermediate forms. For Malmer, with his system of classification, there were by definition no intermediate forms. His only means to approach typology is faceted classification. For Malmer, the beginning of the new type coincides with the appearance of a new attribute.</P>

<P>In the same manner a new period also begins. In practice Malmer does not recognise new periods of culture, only periods of new types of pottery, and, separately, new types of flat flint axes, stone battle-axes with a shaft-hole etc.</P>

<P>Malmer establishes a relative chronology quite artificially and it is unsubstantiated. He works on the assumption that axes or vessels were produced uniformly, with the same speed everywhere, and that one type was replaced by another completely. On these assumptions he builds  production diagrams  in which he represents proportions occupied by each type in the entire quantity of items (axes or vessels) of a given area. According to Malmer, the type that is presented with most items, existed for the longest time. On this basis diagrams for chronological columns (sequences) are constructed. They are compared so as to distinguish where the existence of earlier types was shorter, i. e. where the next ones began earlier, and where later. Accordingly the advance of types over the country may be determined. These hypothetical constructions do not lend credence to Malmer s methodology.</P>

<P>VIII. Migration or local development? Malmer states that he approached the study with a preconceived idea that the bearers of battle-axe culture came to Sweden from outside the area but that during the study he rejected this bias. He is convinced that due to that his idea that this population was aboriginal cannot be preconceived and therefore is not false. But being preconceived does not logically imply being false, moreover, that the idea of indigenous development is not preconceived does not imply that it is true. In fact the opposite, new idea might also be preconceived   there was a general trend at this time to favour indigenous developments and to downplay the role of migrations.</P>

<P>Archaeological criteria for migrations (its material traces) are varied since there are many types of migration. Proof of migration is sometimes superfluous; and no doubt some migrations have left no archaeological traces at all. In the case of battle-axe cultures the population was very mobile and at least to some areas there is evidence of invasion. In the case of the Swedish battle-axe culture one cannot exclude either migration or local development.</P>

<P>Ch. IX. Invention and diffusion. The Swedish-Norwegian culture of battle-axe embraced a large region seemingly  with lightning speed . This could proceed due to migration or to very fast transmission of ideas. Malmer elaborates the explanation for the second version " of contact spreading of innovations. His particular substantiation of this machinery with the same  production diagrams  is not convincing.  Production diagrams , however, can be used in solving other, more particular tasks.</P>

<P>Conclusion. In the final analysis, Malmer s contribution to archaeology leaves an ambiguous impression. On the one hand he dug splendidly, excavated important monuments, processed a large amount of material with exact methods, and compiled plenty of tables. What is more, he perfected the typological method of Montelius, the  king of archaeology . His appeal to exactness and logic is obvious.</P>

<P>On the other hand, his enthusiasm for definitions and relative types and his mistrust of the discovery of types by correlations led him to abandon the task of revealing real types and periods; subsequently, his replacement of typology by analytical classification led other archaeologists to distrust his inferences. Consequently he is not seen as one of the founders of the New Archaeology. Other scholars appeared in these roles instead. However, Malmer remains an investigator of ways into unexplored territory (like a test-pilot), both ways that lead to deadlock and those that remain prospective, and his contribution remains a most interesting and valuable lesson.</P>

</div>



<? require "../page_footer.php" ?>