Archaeology and Questions of Synchrony and Diachrony

From the readings this week I was most impressed by the seeming incongruities between social anthropology and history. These excerpts of works by Geertz, Levi-Strauss, and Sewell demonstrated the disagreements about both the origins and functionality of human culture. Also, these works presented an overview of the division of understanding between diachronically oriented anthropologists and the mostly synchronically concerned historians. I think that within archaeology both Geertz's synchrony and Levi-Strauss's diachrony have been incorporated by necessity.

This week's readings raised many questions, in my mind, as to the proper temporal focus for historians to adequately grasp the meanings and effects of the people and events in historical studies. I minored in archaeology as an undergrad and as a result was exposed to emphasis on diachronic and cultural structural change in human prehistory. Studying human prehistory forces a broader perspective and acceptance of viable sources of information for understanding past human events and behavior. As a result, archaeologists are often forced to make the most out of any remaining evidence. Archaeology functions on two different levels; one which is concerned with preserving and accurately understanding the literal context (both small scale and large) of evidence, and another focusing on the structural organization of social interaction in prehistory. The first level can be seen in the regimentation of artifact and evidence collection along with contextual preservation at archaeological digs. The second level is played out in the reconstruction (spatially and socially) of past populations and attempts to understand how those humans were socially structured and what brought that society to change or disappear.

In my opinion, these two levels present in the study of Archaeology seem similar to the concepts of, respectively, synchrony and diachrony. In material terms Archaeologist follow a synchronic path in creating Geertz's "thick description." Archaeologist aim to understand local social behavior and culture by seeking to preserve as much understanding of the literal context of material evidence as possible. Alternatively, using that material evidence on larger scales, Archaeologist seek to characterize past social structures in the analysis of trade routes, water manipulation, city organization etc. More specifically though, on the larger scale Archaeologists are diachronically motivated in hopes to uncover the social sources of material evidence to understand changes of cultural relationships and structures in bygone societies.