sey075

This is the third of three posts on my view of a “scientific archaeology.” The first two were, “ Science, social science, and archaeology: Where do we stand? ”, and “ Why is itimportant to strive for a more scientific archaeology? ” I will give four reasons why a scientific archaeology is hard to achieve: 1. The new archaeologists picked the wrong model of explanation, and we are still paying for their mistake 2. Confusion about “archaeological science” and “scientific archaeology” 3. Ignorance of the social sciences 4. A widespread commitment to abstract and philosophical social theory Reason 1:   The new archaeologists picked the wrong model of explanation, and we are still paying for their mistake Lewis Binford and the New Archaeologists latched onto the covering law model of explanation, as promoted by Carl Hempel and the other logical positivists. This is a very restrictive model that does not work in the social sciences. Explanation consists of subsuming a particular case und...

This is the second of three posts on my view of a “scientific archaeology.” It follows the post, “Science, social science, and archaeology: Where do westand?” The intervening post, on Pascal Boyer, is a kind of appendix to that earlier post. The third will be, “Why is a scientific archaeology so hard to achieve?” So, why is it important to strive for a more scientific archaeology? Reason 1: To produce a more rigorous understanding of past human societies and their changes through time. The goals of archaeology, in my view, are—first—to discover and document the nature of past human societies, and—second—to explain social variation and change through time with causal explanations. If this seems retrograde, impossible, or misguided, then you probably do not work from a scientific epistemology. That is fine on an individual level. I have no desire to tell individuals what they should believe or do, or what kind of archaeology they should pursue. But on a disciplinary level, the fact tha...