Category Archives: Method & Theory

American Archaelogy : Method and Theory Part 2


Posted by

Many archaeologists have recognized the limitations of the hypothetico-deductive model for explaining prehistoric human behavior. In its purist sense, explanation using this model is attainable only if a particular phenomenon can ultimately be predicted or, in the case of prehistory, postdicted, given a certain set of circumstances. Unfortunately, the complexity of human behavior does not meet the explanatory requirements of prediction. Ethnoarchaeological research clearly indicates that similar archaeological patterns can be produced by different types of human behavior. Therefore, many alternative hypotheses can account for the same pattern in the archaeological record.

Alternative models of scientific confirmation and explanation are generally more inductive. However, the proponents of these models still stress the importance of developing and testing hypotheses. Salmon (1982) argues that the plausibility of all hypothetical accounts of a particular archaeological pattern must be considered. Prior to testing a hypothesis the alternative hypotheses should be evaluated and those with a low probability (prior probability) rejected prior to the test. Statistical rather than universal laws of human behavior can thus be established. This philosophical model is more compatible with the systems approach, which is a more inductive method of scientific inquiry.

The foundations of the scientific method for reconstructing the prehistoric past have recently been questioned. Critiques have been put forward by archaeologists who emphasize the explanatory significance of historical factors for understanding prehistoric culture change. They argue that the complexities of historical trajectories are impossible to predict using scientific reasoning. For this reason, I. Hodder (1984) argues that the scientific method cannot be used to reconstruct prehistoric human behavior and that scientific objectivity is “a false and misleading goal of archaeology.” This view is also based on the notion that archaeological theory is influenced by the historical, intellectual, and sociopolitical climate in which it is developed. Therefore, scientific verification of hypotheses is impossible because theory and data cannot be separated. These are valid criticisms of scientific archaeology; however, proponents of this radical school of thought have largely failed to propose a sound alternative approach.

With the exception of the post-processual group, scientific methods continue to be favored in contemporary archaeology. In general, archaeologists agree that the primary goal of archaeological research is to describe and explain behavioral changes in the prehistoric past. Description and explanation are scientific activities. It is also recognized that the scientific method provides a useful guide to archaeological research in that it helps determine what types of data to collect and analyze. However, archaeologists do not yet agree on the best philosophical model for scientific inquiry. Whether verification of hypotheses should be an inductive or a deductive process will undoubtedly be an issue in the field of archaeology for years to come. Regardless, scientific activities should not be undertaken at the expense of ignoring historically unique phenomena. Archaeology is both a scientific and humanistic discipline. The scientific method is only one aspect of exploring the complexity of human behavior. Particular historical events must be considered in all explanations of past events. Historical and scientific approaches should be treated as complementary rather than antithetical and used in parallel to further elucidate the prehistoric past.


American Archaelogy : Method and Theory Part 1


Posted by

Science is a process of learning and discovery through the systematic study of principles that govern observable phenomena. The basic assumption of all sciences is that there is a real and knowable world and that regularities in it can be reconstructed through the development and testing of hypotheses. Hypotheses are stated relationships between two or more variables in the empirical world that anticipate and explain the interaction between them. Stated relationships are confirmed or rejected by observing the empirical world. Confirmed hypotheses are incorporated into larger theories useful for explaining natural and behavioral phenomena. Scientists are required to be explicit about their assumptions when formulating hypotheses. This allows other scientists to evaluate the foundations of the hypothesis and the validity of the test. Because scientific hypotheses are often dependent upon the accuracy of other confirmed hypotheses and assumptions, they are always open to further evaluation and testing. This is the self-correcting nature of a productive science.

In archaeology, the scientific method has provided a philosophical framework to develop and evaluate ideas that increase our knowledge about prehistoric human behavior. The scientific method was adopted in the 1960s by archaeologists wanting to assign more accurate meaning to archaeological data. Until this time archaeology in the United States was largely descriptive and focused on reconstructing particular cultural chronologies. Unlike scientific archaeology, traditional archaeologists interpreted patterns in the archaeological record largely from personal experience. Interpretations were evaluated on the basis of professional competence rather than testing with empirical data. During the postwar era, change was proposed by a small minority of archaeologists concerned with the way archaeological problems were formulated and analyzed. Walter Taylor (1948) and others (G. R. Willey and P. Phillips 1958) advocated the development and testing of general laws to explain cross-cultural regularities in human behavior, rather than simply describing them. Taylor also proposed using a more scientific approach for reconstructing the prehistoric past involving the formulation of hypotheses and rigorous testing against archaeological data.

The use of scientific method in archaeology was at the core of the “New Archaeology” championed by Lewis Binford and his followers beginning in the 1960s. Binford became dissatisfied with the types of questions being addressed in archaeology as well as the way conclusions were being drawn. He proposed that the process of inquiry into the prehistoric past be modeled after the physical sciences. Initially, proponents of the New Archaeology were interested in testing theories developed by traditional archaeologists. For this reason, Binford turned to the hypotheticodeductive school of scientific explanation that dominated philosophy of science in the United States at that time. This school of thought promoted the deductive testing of hypotheses and the confirmation of general laws. The principal tenets of this approach were adopted quickly by much of the archaeological community and were viewed by some as the only valid framework to describe, explain, and predict human behavior.

Over the past three decades archaeologists have debated which scientific methods are most appropriate for describing and explaining the prehistoric past. Much of this debate has focused on the most legitimate way of developing and testing hypotheses. Hypotheses are usually generated inductively through the observation of patterns and common features in the archaeological record. Ethnographic analogy is also used to inductively establish testable hypotheses about human behavior. In some cases, hypotheses are augmented, or formulated in more creative ways, using personal insight and imagination. Regardless of how hypotheses about past cultural events are developed, they must also be tested. The hypothetico-deductive method of testing hypotheses requires an observational prediction to be deduced from the hypothesis. If observation of the empirical phenomenon under investigation conforms to the prediction, the hypothesis is said to be confirmed. A hypothesis is strongly supported when several confirming instances are observed.