Advertisement

On “Heavily Decomposing Red Herrings”: Scientific Method in Archaeology and the Ladening of Evidence with Theory

  • Alison Wylie
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 147)

Abstract

Internal debates over the status and aims of archaeology—between processualists and post or anti-processualists—have been so sharply adversarial, and have generated such sharply polarized positions, that they obscure much common ground. Despite strong rhetorical opposition, in practice, all employ a range of strategies for building and assessing the empirical credibility of their claims that reveals a common commitment to some form of mitigated objectivism. To articulate what this comes to, an account is given of how archaeological data may be ‘laden with theory’ constructed as evidence—and yet still function as an independent constraint on interpretation.

Keywords

Scientific Method Archaeological Record Archaeological Data Grave Good Cultural Past 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References Cited

  1. Bender, Barbara, “Comments on Archaeology Into the 1990s,” Norwegian Archaeological Review 22.1(1989): 12–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Binford, Lewis R., “Objectivity—Explanation—Archaeology 1981,” in Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by Colin Renfrew, M. J. Rowlands, and B. A. Segraves, Academic Press, New York, 1982, pp. 125–138.Google Scholar
  3. Binford, Lewis R., Working at Archaeology, Academic Press, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
  4. Binford, Lewis R., Debating Archaeology, Academic Press, New York, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. Binford, Lewis R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff, “Paradigms, Systematics, and Archaeology,” Journal of Anthropological Research 38(1982): 137–153.Google Scholar
  6. Feyerabend, Against Method, revised edition, Verso, London, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. Galison, Peter, How Experiments End, University of Chicago Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. Galison, Peter, “Multiple Constraints, Simultaneous Solutions,” PSA 1988 Volume 2, edited by A. Fine and J. Leplin, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan, 1988, pp. 157–163.Google Scholar
  9. Gould, Richard A, Living Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980.Google Scholar
  10. Grayson, Donald K., “Eoliths, Archaeological Ambiguity, and the Generation of ‘Middle-Range’ Research,” in American Archaeology Past and Future, edited by David J. Meltzer, Don D. Fowler, and Jeremy A. Sabloff, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1986, pp. 135–162.Google Scholar
  11. Hacking, Ian, Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hacking, Ian, “Philosophers of Experiment,” PSA 1988 Volume 2, edited by A. Fine and J. Leplin, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan, 1988, 147–156.Google Scholar
  13. Hodder, Ian (editor), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.Google Scholar
  14. Hodder, Ian, “Archaeology, Ideology and Contemporary Society,” Royal Anthropological Institute News 56(1983): 6–7.Google Scholar
  15. Hodder, Ian, “Archaeology in 1984,” Antiquity 58 (1984): 25–32.Google Scholar
  16. Hodder, Ian, “Post-Processual Archaeology,” in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 8, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, Academic Press, 1985, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
  17. Hodder, Ian, Reading the Past, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.Google Scholar
  18. Hodder, Ian, “Comments on Archaeology Into the 1990s,” Norwegian Archaeological Review 22.1(1989): 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hodder, Ian, “Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role” American Antiquity, 56.1 (1991): 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kosso, Peter, “Dimensions of Observability,” British Journal of Philosophy of Science 39 (1988): 449–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kosso, Peter, “Science and Objectivity,” Journal of Philosophy 86 (1989): 245–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Longino, Helen, “Political Dimensions of Epistemological Critiques,” Part I of “Conflicts and Tensions in the Feminist Study of Gender and Science,” in Conflicts in Feminism, edited by Marianne Hirsch and Evelyn Fox Keller, Routledge, 1990, 165–176.Google Scholar
  23. Olsen, Bjorner, “Comments on Archaeology Into the 1990s,” Norwegian Archaeological Review 22.1(1989): 18–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Renfrew, Colin, “Comments on Archaeology Into the 1990s,” Norwegian Archaeological Review 22.1(1989): 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schiffer, Michael B., “Toward the Identification of Formation Processes,” American Antiquity 48 (1983): 675–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shapere, Dudley, “The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy,” Philosophy of Science 49 (1982): 485–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shapere, Dudley, “Observation and the Scientific Enterprise,” in Observation, Experiment, and Hypothesis in Modern Physical Science, edited by P. Achinstein and O. Hannaway, MIT Press, 1985, pp. 22–45.Google Scholar
  28. Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley, “Ideology, Symbolic Power, and Ritual Communication: A Reinterpretation of Neolithic Mortuary Practices,” in Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by Ian Hodder, Cambridge University Press, 1982, pp. 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley, Re-constructing Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  30. Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley, “Archaeology Into the 1990s,” Norwegian Archaeological Review 22.1(1989): 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley, “Questions Rather Than Answers: Reply to Comments on Archaeology Into the 1990s,” Norwegian Archaeological Review 22.1(1989): 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tilley, Christopher, “Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Middle Neolithic of Southern Sweden,” in Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, edited by Daniel Miller and Christopher Tilley, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984, pp. 111–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Trigger, B. G., “Comments on Archaeology Into the 1990s,” Norwegian Archaeological Review 22.1(1989): 28–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Watson, Patty Jo, “Archaeological Interpretation, 1985,” in American Archaeology Past and Future, edited by David J. Meltzer, Don D. Fowler, and Jeremy A. Sabloff, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1986, pp. 439–458.Google Scholar
  35. Weitzenfeld, Julian S., “Valid Reasoning by Analogy,” Philosophy of Science 51 (1984): 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wylie, Alison, “The Interplay of Evidential Constraints and Political Interests: Recent Archaeological Work on Gender,” American Antiquity 57 (1992): 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wylie, Alison, “The Reaction Against Analogy,” in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 8, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, New York, Academic Press, 1985, pp. 63–111.Google Scholar
  38. Wylie, Alison, “‘Simple’ Analogy and the Role of Relevance Assumptions: Implications of Archaeological Practice,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2.2(1988): 134–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wylie, Alison, “The Interpretive Dilemma,” in Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology, edited by Valerie Pinsky and Alison Wylie, Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 18–27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alison Wylie

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations