Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-05T02:40:33.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Science, Theory, and Reality in the “New Archaeology”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Donn T. Bayard
Donn T. Bayard*
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent developments in American archaeological theory are criticized with regard to inaccuracies in the use of the concepts of science, theory, and reality. The author argues that archaeology (like anthropology) is a discipline rather than a "hard" science dealing with large amounts of rigorously quantifiable, replicable data; thus attempts to "prove laws" through the use of statistical methods and models borrowed from the physical sciences are often spurious. He believes that theory is primarily explanatory rather than methodological, and hence should be presented as an explanation of a number of cases rather than of one or two selected examples. In addition, rigorous methods of data collection should not be sacrificed in the search for more "rigorous" theory, a search which too often seems to stem from a defensive desire to make archaeology a "hard" science. The author argues that objective reality is too commonly confused with both logical constructs abstracted from this reality and with constructs such as "cultural reality" which are in turn abstracted from these constructs. He feels models describing objective reality are simply utilitarian, explanatory abstractions not related to such concepts as absolute truth and absolute reality. Little is offered in the way of constructive conclusions save for the suggestions that there may be no need for a set of specifically archaeological theory, and that archaeological knowledge is neither power nor defensive justification but merely its own reward.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , October 1969 , pp. 376 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1969

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

Ascher, Robert 1961a Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern ]ournai of Anthropology, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 317–25. Albuquerque.10.1086/soutjanth.17.4.3628943 Google Scholar
Ascher, Robert 1961b Experimental Archaeology. American Anthropologist, Vol. 63, No. 4, pp. 793–816. Menasha.10.1525/aa.1961.63.4.02a00070 Google Scholar
Ascher, Marcia and Ascher, Robert 1963 Chronological Ordering by Computer. American Anthropologist, Vol. 65, No. 5, pp. 1045–52. Menasha.Google Scholar
Ayer, Alfred J. 1936 Language, Truth, and Logic. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bidney, David 1953 Theoretical Anthropology. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bidney, David 1962 Comment on “Epistemology and Archaeological Theory,” by Gordon R. Lowther. Current Anthropology, Vol. 3, No. 5, p. 504. Chicago.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 217–25. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1963 “Red Ocher” Caches from the Michigan Area: A Possible Case of Cultural Drift. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 89–108. Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1964 A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design. American Antiquity, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 425–41. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Cultural Processes. American Antiquity, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 203–10. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1967 Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning. American Antiquity, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 1–12. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Burling, Robbins 1964 Cognition and Componential Analysis: God’s Truth or Hocus-Pocus? American Anthropologist, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 20–7. Menasha.10.1525/aa.1964.66.1.02a00020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, Joseph R. 1966 The New American Archaeology. In New Roads to Yesterday, edited by J. R. Caldwell, pp. 333–47. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Carneiro, Robert L. 1962 Scale Analysis as an Instrument for the Study of Cultural Evolution. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 149–69. Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Chang, K. C. 1967 Rethinking Archaeology. Random House, New York.Google Scholar
Clark, Grahame 1965 Archaeology and Society. Barnes and Noble, New York.Google Scholar
Deetz, James 1965 The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics. University of Illinois Series in Anthropology, No. 4. Urbana.Google Scholar
Deetz, James 1967 Invitation to Archaeology. Natural History Press, Garden City.Google Scholar
Dethlefsen, Edwin and Deetz, James 1966 Death’s Heads, Cherubs, and Willow Trees: Experimental Archaeology in Colonial Cemeteries. American Antiquity, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 502–10. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Edmonson, Munro S. 1961 Neolithic Diffusion Rates. Current Anthropology, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 71–102. Chicago.Google Scholar
Flannery, Kent V. 1967 Review of “An Introduction to American Archaeology; Volume I: North and Middle America,” by Gordon R. Willey. Scientific American, Vol. 217, No. 2, pp. 119–22. New York.Google Scholar
Gamow, George 1961 One Two Three … Infinity. Viking Press, New York.Google Scholar
Gardin, J. C. 1965 On a Possible Interpretation of Componential Analysis in Archaeology. In “Formal Semantic Analysis,” edited by E. A. Hammel. American Anthropologist, Vol. 67, No. 5, Pt. 2, pp. 9–22. Menasha.Google Scholar
Gifford, James C. 1960 The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classification as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena. American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 341–7. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Haury, Emil W. and others 1956 An Archaeological Approach to the Study of Cultural Stability. In “Seminars in Archaeology: 1955,” edited by Robert Wauchope. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, No. 11, Vol. 22, No. 2, Pt. 2, pp. 31–57. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Hayakawa, S. I. 1941 Language in Action. Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York.Google Scholar
Hill, James N. 1966 A Prehistoric Community in Eastern Arizona. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 9–30. Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Hodges, H. W. M. 1965 Aspects of Pottery in Temperate Europe before the Roman Empire. In “Ceramics and Man,” edited by F. R. Matson, pp. 114–23. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, No. 41. Chicago.Google Scholar
Kobben, A. J. F. 1967 Why Exceptions? The Logic of Cross-Cultural Analysis. Current Anthropology, Vol. 8, Nos. 1 and 2, pp. 3–34. Utrecht, Netherlands.10.1086/200855 Google Scholar
Leach, Edmund 1964 Comment on “On Ethnic Unit Classification,” by Raoul Naroll. Current Anthropology, Vol. 5, No. 4, p. 299. Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Longacre, William A. 1964 Archeology as Anthropology: A Case Study. Science, Vol. 144, No. 3625, pp. 1454–5. Washington.Google Scholar
Longacre, William A. 1966 Changing Patterns of Social Integration: A Prehistoric Example from the American Southwest. American Anthropologist, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 94–102. Menasha.Google Scholar
Lord, Anthony S. 1964 Some Aspects of Lexeme Lists in Relation to Glottochronological and Lexicostatistical Studies. MS, Master’s thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Lowther, Gordon R. 1962 Epistemology and Archaeological Theory. Current Anthropology, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 495–509. Chicago.Google Scholar
Mao Tse-Tung 1966 Quotations from Chairman Moo Tse-Tung. Foreign Languages Press, Peking.Google Scholar
Meggers, Betty J. 1955 The Coming of Age of American Archaeology. In “New Interpretations of Aboriginal American Culture.” 75th Anniversary Volume of the Anthropological Society of Washington, pp. 116–29. Washington.Google Scholar
Merwe, Nikolaas J. van der 1966 New Mathematics for Glottochronology. Current Anthropology, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 485–500. Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Murdock, George Peter 1963 Outline of World Cultures. 3rd Editon, Revised. Human Relations Area Files, Inc., New Haven.Google Scholar
Naroll, Raoul 1964 On Ethnic Unit Classification. Current Anthropology, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 283–312. Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Onions, C. T. (editor) 1965 The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles; Third Edition Revised With Addenda. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Opler, Morris E. 1961 Cultural Evolution, Southern Athapaskans, and Chronology in Theory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 1–20. Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Opler, Morris E. 1962 Two Converging Lines of Influence in Cultural Evolutionary Theory. American Anthropologist, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 524–47. Menasha.Google Scholar
Piggott, Stuart 1959 Approach to Archaeology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rouse, Irving 1960 The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology. American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 313–23. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Rowe, John Howland 1961 Stratigraphy and Sedation. American Antiquity, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 324–30. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Rowe, John Howland 1962 Stages and Periods in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 40–54. Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Ruppé, Reynold J. 1966 The Archaeological Survey: A Defense. American Antiquity, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 313–33. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Spaulding, Albert C. 1960a The Dimensions of Archaeology. In Essays in the Science of Culture in Honor of Leslie A. White, edited by G. E. Dole and Robert L. Carneiro. Thomas Y. Crowell and Company, New York.Google Scholar
Spaulding, Albert C. 1960b Review of “Approach to Archaeology,” by S. Piggott. American Antiquity, Vol. 26, No. 1, p. 123. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Steward, Julian 1962 Comment on “Epistomology and Archaeological Theory,” by Gordon R. Lowther. Current Anthropology, Vol. 3, No. 5, p. 509. Chicago.Google Scholar
Steward, Julian and others 1955 Irrigation Civilizations: A Comparative Study. A Symposium on Method and Result in Cross-Cultural Regularities. Pan American Union, Washington.Google Scholar
Suggs, Robert C. 1967 Comment on “Why Exceptions? The Logic of Cross-Cultural Analysis,” by A. J. F. Köbben. Current Anthropology, Vol. 8, Nos. 1 and 2, p. 26. Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Taylor, Walter W. 1948 A Study of Archaeology. Memoir No. 69, American Anthropological Association. Menasha.Google Scholar
Wallace, Anthony F. C. 1965 The Problem of the Psychological Validity of Componential Analyses. In “Formal Semantic Analysis,” edited by E. A. Hammel. American Anthropologist, Vol. 67, No. 5, Pt. 2, pp. 229–48. Menasha.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Mortimer 1954 Archaeology from the Earth. Penguin Books, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Willey, Gordon R. and Phillips, Philip 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar