Metaarchaeology: Reflections by Archaeologists and Philosophers

337 Pages·1992·10.74 MB·English

by  Lester Embree (auth.)

METAARCHAEOLOGY
BOSTON STUDIES IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Editor
ROBERT S. COHEN, Boston University
Editorial Advisory Board
THOMAS F. GLICK, Boston University
ADOLF GRUNBAUM, University ofP ittsburgh
SAHOTRA SARKAR, Boston University
SYLVAN S. SCHWEBER, Brandeis University
JOHN J. STACHEL, Boston University
MARX W. WARTOFSKY, Baruch College of
the City University ofN ew York
VOLUME 147
METAARCHAEOLOGY
Reflections by
Archaeologists and Philosophers
Edited by
LESTER EMBREE
Florida Atlantic Vniversity,
Collegefor Advanced Research in Phellomenology,
Boca Raton, V.SA.
SPRINGER SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Metaarchaeology , reflections by archeologists and philosophers /
edlted by Lester Embree.
p. cm. -- (Boston studies in the philosophy of science v.
147)
Includes indexes.
ISBN 978-94-010-4806-4 ISBN 978-94-011-1826-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-1826-2
1. Archaeo 1o gy--Ph il osophy. 1. Embree. Lester E. II. Ser i es.
0174.B67 vol. 147
[ccn]
001' . 01 s--dc20
[930.1' O Il 92-33755
ISBN 978-94-010-4806-4
Printed an acid-free paper
AII Rights Reserved
© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1992
Softcover reprint ofthe hardcover 1s t edition 1992
No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface xii
LESTER EMBREE / Introductory Essay: The Future and
Past of Metaarchaeology 3
PART I: ARCHAEOLOGY
ROBERT D. DRENNAN / What is the Archaeology of
Chiefdoms about? 53
ROBERT C. DUNNELL / Is a Scientific Archaeology Possible? 75
JEREMY A SABLOFF / Interpreting the Collapse of Classic
Maya Civilization: A Case Study of Changing
Archaeological Perspectives 99
PATTY JO WATSON / Explanation in Archaeology: Reactions
and Rebuttals 121
PART II: PHILOSOPHY OF ARCHAEOLOGY
JAMES A BELL / Universalization in Archaeological Explanation 143
LESTER EMBREE / Phenomenology of a Change in
Archaeological Observation 165
MARSHA HANEN AND JANE KELLEY / Gender and
Archaeological Knowledge 195
MERRILEE H. SALMON / Philosophical Models for
Postprocessual Archaeology 227
WESLEY C. SALMON / Explanation in Archaeology:
An Update 243
RICHARD A WATSON / The Place of Archaeology in Science 255
ALISON WYLIE / On "Heavily Decomposing Red Herrings":
Scientific Method in Archaeology and the
Ladening of Evidence with Theory 269
vi
Selected Bibliography of Archaeological Metaarchaeology 289
Bibliography of Philosophical Metaarchaeology 319
Index of Names 327
Index of Topics 331
Preface
This volume has been organized chiefly in the hope that it will auract
philosophers into the subspeciality best called the philosophy of
archaeology. To this end, original essays have been included (1) from
several leading archaeologists in order to show something of how
accessible and interesting archaeological literature can be and (2) from
all but one of the currently active philosophers of archaeology in order
to show something of the current state of philosophical discussions
concerning archaeology. (3) Bibliographies have been developed not only
of the philosophy of archaeology but also of selected parts of the
component that can be called meta archaeology in the leading tradition
within archaeology. Finally, (4) an historical introduction has been
included to show the variety of meta scientific as well as orientational
standpoints that philosophers of archaeology have resorted to during over
two decades and then to speculate about the future of this subspeciality
in philosophy of science.
The editor to this volume thanks Robert S. Cohen for the invitation
to participate in the session on theoretical archaeology of the Boston
Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science in March 1987 and the invitation
to develop this volume that grew from that memorable evening. He
thanks the contributors not only for the excellence of their essays but
also their patience and cooperation during the editing process. He thanks
Dr. Mano Daniel for assistance with the editing and preparation of the
camera-ready copy.
Lester Embree
Delray Beach
July 1992
vii
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
The Future and Past of Metaarchaeology
Lester Embree
There has been ongoing philosophizing about archaeology, critical
reflection by archaeologists on their own endeavors, and dialogue about
archaeology between philosophers and archaeologists since the 1960s.
Enough has happened philosophically for the existence of a subdiscipline
of the philosophy of science to be recognized, for an historical sketch of
it to be attempted, and for some speculations about its future to be
ventured. Several alternative expressions for fundamental distinctions will
be used below towards enhancing the intelligibility of these developments
and are best commented upon here at the outset.
The expression metaarchaeology is hereby proposed generically to
denote critical reflection upon the science of archaeology. This reflection
consists in an examination of the assumptions, goals, methods, Objects,
processes, broad conceptual frameworks, etc., of the science. Meta
archaeology is divisible into at least two types, archaeological meta
archaeology and philosophical metaarchaeology. This distinction is
proposed in recognition of the existence of reflective critique of
archaeology from inside the science by archaeologists and from outside it
by philosophers and from the belief that referring to both as "philosophy
of science" is misleading. This proposal is, however, essentially termino
logical; the matters referred to continue to be as they were. The specified
expressions are obviously mouthfuls, but no more so than expressions like
"philosophy of science in archaeology"; also the adjectives will be
unnecessary when context can specify the thought adequately. Further
more, philosophy of archaeology can often be used instead of philo
sophical metaarchaeology to denote the subspeciality or, correlatively,
subfield, of philosophy of science referred to.
Critical reflections on archaeology both by archaeologists and from
within philosophy are diverse along two major dimensions. Along one
dimension, some of these reflections are logical, some of them are
historical, some are sociological, some are political, some are economic,
and other varieties are possible. In these cases, one or another meta-
3
L. Embree (ed.), Metaarchae%gy, 3-50.
© 1992 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
4 LESTER EMBREE
scientific perspective can be said to be used. Metaarchaeologists of both
the philosophical and the archaeological types have increasingly employed
more and more metascientific perspectives. Along the other dimension,
a variety of schools of thought or intellectual orientations are represented
in archaeological as well as philosophical metaarchaeology. There has
been increased diversity in this respect as well, so that today Deconstruc
tionist, Empiricist, Evolutionist, Feminist, Hermeneuticist, Materialist,
Phenomenological, Refutationist, and no doubt other intellectual
orientations are represented in either archaeological metaarchaeology,
philosophical metaarchaeology, or both. The following sections will show
the pluralism of intellectual orientations as well as the various recourses
to metascientific perspectives in metaarchaeology.
I. Archaeological Metaarchaeology
Some remarks will be offered in subsequent sections about the history of
the philosophy of archaeology and the future of this subspecialty, but
remarks of a different sort can introduce the archaeological contributions.
(1) Superficially considered, Robert Drennan's chapter might seem
two essays, one about how the three expressions method, theory, and
method and theory are used in archaeology and one about the ultimate
aims of archaeology, but when it is asked which of these components is
end and which is means in archaeological research the essential
relatedness of the topics becomes clear. Drennan substantiates his position
through critical discussion of four of the best works in the literature on
the archaeology of chiefdoms. He agrees and disagrees with others
concerning the ends and means of the endeavor, repeatedly contrasting
what they do with what they say. He would have the expression theory
refer to the ultimate goal of explaining socio-cultural change and method
refer to how this objective is to be attained. Hence the fusion of
"methodandtheory"-to go a step beyond his ironic orthography-needs
to be redifferentiated. Models that use analyses of prehistoric cases as
support for claims about how chiefdoms arise and function are theoreti
cal, while the procedures that use explanatory models in the identifying
and analyzing of such cases are methodological. The essay itself is clearly
a reflection by an archaeologist on how his science is and ought to be
done and is thus metaarchaeological.