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

Abstract

AbstractRecent 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.