Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T04:00:23.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Vanpools' “Scientific” Postprocessualism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Philip J. Arnold III  and
Brian S. Wilkens
Philip J. Arnold III
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Loyola University of Chicago, 6525 N. Sheridan, Chicago, IL 60626
Brian S. Wilkens
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Loyola University of Chicago, 6525 N. Sheridan, Chicago, IL 60626
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recently, VanPool and VanPool (1999) propose that postprocessual archaeology can be construed as a scientific practice if archaeologists would simply adopt a ,realistic view- of science. We argue that this ,realistic view- actually misrepresents science and we question the VanPools' attempt to reduce the dynamic practice of science to a series of static traits. We also affirm the incompatibility of the respective confirmation strategies employed by the postprocessual and processual programs.

Résumé

Résumé

En su publicación reciente, VanPool y VanPool (1999) proponen que se puede considerar como cientlfica la arqueologia postprocesual, si sólo los arqueólogos adoptan una “perspectiva realistica” de la ciencia. Respondemos que dicha perspectivas en realidad,falsifica la ciencia. Por eso, su discusián como un vehículo de reconciliación entre la arqueologiaprocesual y la arqueología postprocesual no es productiva. Nuestra respuesta enfatiza algunos problemas de la caracterización de la ciencia advocada por los autores y niega el valor de presentar la práctica de la ciencia como una série de características estáticas.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , April 2001 , pp. 361 - 366
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Arnold, P. J., III 2000 Back to Basics : The Middle Range Program as Pragmatic Archaeology. Manuscript on file, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Loyola University, Chicago.Google Scholar
Bell, J. A. 1982 Archaeological Explanation : Progress through Criticism. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by Renfrew, C., M. J. Rowlands, and B. A. Segraves, pp. 65–72. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bell, J. A. 1987 Reason vs. Relativism : Ian Hodder's Reading the Past. Archaeological Review of Cambridge 6 : 75–86.Google Scholar
Bell, J. A. 1991 Anarchy and Archaeology. In Processual and Post- Processual Archaeologies : Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by Preucel, R. W., pp. 71–80. Southern Dlinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Bell, J. A. 1992 Universalization in Archaeological Explanation. In Metaarchaeology : Reflection by Archaeologists and Philosophers, edited by Embree, L., pp. 143–163. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1982 Objectivity—Explanation—Archaeology. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by Renfrew, C., M. J. Rowlands, and B. A. Segraves, pp. 125–138. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Burtt, E. A. 1989 The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science; A Historical and Critical Essay. London, Routledge.Google Scholar
Cowgill, G. L. 1993 Distinguished Lecture in Archaeology : Beyond Criticizing New Archaeology. American Anthropologist 95 : 551–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1971 Systematics in Prehistory. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Embree, L. (editor) 1992 Metaarchaeology : Reflection by Archaeologists and Philosophers. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. 1975 Against Method : Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. New Left Books, London.Google Scholar
Hanen, M. P., and Kelley, J. H. 1989 Inference to the Best Explanation in Archaeology. In CriticalTraditions in Contemporary Archaeology, edited by Pinsky, V. and Wylie, A., pp. 14—17. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hanen, M. P., and Kelley, J. H. 1992 Gender and Archaeological Knowledge. In Metaarchaeology : Reflections by Archaeologists andPhilosophers, edited by Embree, L., pp. 195–225. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1986 Reading the Past : Current Approaches and Interpretations in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1991 Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role. Antiquity 56 : 7–18.Google Scholar
Johnsen, H., and Olsen, B. 1992 Hermeneutics and Archaeology : On the Philosophy of Contextual Archaeology. American Antiquity 57 : 419–439.Google Scholar
Kelley, J. H, and Hanen, M. P. 1988 Archaeology and the Methodology of Science. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Kosso, P. 1991 Method in Archaeology : Middle-Range Theory as Hermeneutics. American Antiquity 56 : 621–627.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. 1970 Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, edited by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A., pp. 91–195. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. 1977 Progress and Its Problems. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Leone, M. P. 1986 Symbolic, Structural, and Critical Archaeology. In American Archaeology : Past and Future, edited by Meltzer, D. J., Fowler, D. D., and Sabloff, J. A., pp. 415–438. Smith sonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Losee, J. 1993 A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Patterson, T. C. 1990 Some Theoretical Tensions within and between the Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9 : 189–200.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1959 The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1974 Replies to my Critics. In The Philosophy of Karl Popper, Bookll, edited by Schilpp, P., pp. 691–1197. The Library of Living Philosophers, vol. XIV. Open Court, La Salle, Illinois.Google Scholar
Preucel, R. W 1995 The Postprocessual Condition. Journal of Archaeological Research 3 : 147–175.Google Scholar
Preucel, R. W (editor) 1991 Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies : Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past. Center For Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale, IL.Google Scholar
Redman, C. 1991 Distinguished Lecture in Archaeology. American Anthropologist 93 : 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1989 Comments on Archaeology into the 1990s. Norwegian Archaeological Review 22 : 33–41.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. 1961 Foresight andUnderstanding. Harper Torchbooks, New York.Google Scholar
VanPool, C. S., and VanPool, T. L. 1999 The Scientific Nature of Postprocessualism. American Antiquity 64 : 33–53.Google Scholar
Voorrips, A. 1982 Mambrino's Helmet : A Framework for Structuring Archaeological Data. In Essays inArchaeologicalTypology, edited by Whallon, R. and Brown, J., pp. 93–126. Center for American Archeology Press, Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
Watson, R. A. 1990 Ozymandias, King of Kings : Postprocessual Radical Archaeology as Critique. American Antiquity 55 : 673–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, R. A. 1991 What the New Archaeology has Accomplished. Current Anthropology 32 : 275–291.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1989a The Interpretive Dilemma. In Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology, edited by Pinsky, V. and Wylie, A., pp. 18–27. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1989b Matters of Fact and Matters of Interest. In Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, edited by Shennan, S. J., pp. 94–109. Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1992a On “Heavily Decomposing Red Herrings“ : Scientific Methods in Archaeology and the Ladening of Evidence with Theory. In Metaarchaeology : Reflection by Archaeologists and Philosophers, edited by Embree, L., pp. 269–288. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, A. 1992b The Interplay of Evidential Constraints and Political Interests : Recent Archaeological Research on Gender. American Antiquity 57 : 15–35.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 2000 Questions of Evidence, Legitimacy, and the (Dis)Union of Science. American Antiquity 65 : 227–237.Google Scholar