ABSTRACT
Recently, Gardin has written of ‘the amazing convergence between the positions defended…by C.Renfrew, I.Hodder, and others, under various names (cognitive archaeology, symbolic archaeology, contextual archaeology), and the major theses which characterize the hermeneutic current in contemporary semiotics’ (Gardin 1992). More archaeologists are choosing to emphasize that the symbolic and economic aspects of human existence are intimately related, and perhaps even inseparable. Examples would include discussions of the intimate relationship between religion and trade (Flannery and Marcus 1993:262), and between subjective perception and the physical landscape (Bender 1993:257). Yet, although Renfrew also hints at the possibility of a new synthesis, discussing the role of symbols in a wide range of human activities (Renfrew 1993b:249, 1994), he has been careful to qualify his remarks:
Perhaps we shall soon see some convergence between such fields as cognitive psychology, studies in artificial intelligence, computer simulation and cognitive archaeology. The time may be ripe for a great leap forward. But I don’t see this happening until those archaeologists interested in the symbolic and cognitive dimensions devote more attention to the formation of a coherent, explicit and in that sense scientific methodology by which that dimension can be systematically explored through the examination and analysis of the archaeological record.
