Charles Perreault
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- January 2020
- ISBN:
- 9780226630823
- eISBN:
- 9780226631011
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226631011.001.0001
- Subject:
- Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology
Archaeologists routinely interpret the archaeological record in terms of microscale processes – individual-level processes that operate within the human lifespan. In embracing this goal, ...
More
Archaeologists routinely interpret the archaeological record in terms of microscale processes – individual-level processes that operate within the human lifespan. In embracing this goal, archaeologists have borrowed an agenda designed by, and for, disciplines that study humans in the present-time and use data with a quality that is orders of magnitude different than archaeological data. By forcing such an agenda on the record, archaeologists are offering explanations for the human past that are merely consistent with the record, instead of being supported beyond a reasonable doubt by a smoking gun. As a result, their research suffers from an inordinate equifinality. This book addresses this problem by developing a theory of the various pathways leading to equifinality and underdetermination, that links them to various aspects of the quality of the archaeological record, and that articulates how these different aspects are shaped by various forces such as site formation processes. Using published literature, archaeological data are found to be dominated with sampling intervals and resolutions in the order of 102-3 years – too long for the study of microscale processes. The history of archaeology, archaeologists’ view of uniformitarianism, and the way they are trained to confirm hypotheses have allowed archaeologists to ignore the underdetermination problem that plagues their research. I argue that archaeologists should recalibrate their research program to the quality of the archaeological record by focusing primarily on cultural historical reconstruction and macroarchaeology, i.e. the search for macroscale patterns and processes in the global archaeological record.Less
Archaeologists routinely interpret the archaeological record in terms of microscale processes – individual-level processes that operate within the human lifespan. In embracing this goal, archaeologists have borrowed an agenda designed by, and for, disciplines that study humans in the present-time and use data with a quality that is orders of magnitude different than archaeological data. By forcing such an agenda on the record, archaeologists are offering explanations for the human past that are merely consistent with the record, instead of being supported beyond a reasonable doubt by a smoking gun. As a result, their research suffers from an inordinate equifinality. This book addresses this problem by developing a theory of the various pathways leading to equifinality and underdetermination, that links them to various aspects of the quality of the archaeological record, and that articulates how these different aspects are shaped by various forces such as site formation processes. Using published literature, archaeological data are found to be dominated with sampling intervals and resolutions in the order of 102-3 years – too long for the study of microscale processes. The history of archaeology, archaeologists’ view of uniformitarianism, and the way they are trained to confirm hypotheses have allowed archaeologists to ignore the underdetermination problem that plagues their research. I argue that archaeologists should recalibrate their research program to the quality of the archaeological record by focusing primarily on cultural historical reconstruction and macroarchaeology, i.e. the search for macroscale patterns and processes in the global archaeological record.
Charles Perreault
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- January 2020
- ISBN:
- 9780226630823
- eISBN:
- 9780226631011
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226631011.003.0008
- Subject:
- Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology
For years, archaeologists have used the archaeological record as if it was a window on the past. As if they could look through it, like an observer behind a one-way mirror, and study past human ...
More
For years, archaeologists have used the archaeological record as if it was a window on the past. As if they could look through it, like an observer behind a one-way mirror, and study past human societies the way cultural anthropologist would do. In doing so, archaeologists have uncritically borrowed a programmatic agenda that was designed by, and for, researchers who study humans in the present-time and using data that has a scope, a sampling interval, a resolution, and a dimensionality that is orders of magnitude different than what archaeologists have access to. Unlike the study of cultural history, macroarchaeology, that is, the search for mega-scale patterns and processes in the archaeological record, is uncharted territory. The current theories of human culture have virtually nothing to say about what mega-trends could exist in the archaeological record, or about what mega-scale drivers, such as climate or biogeography, might have shaped the course of human history.Less
For years, archaeologists have used the archaeological record as if it was a window on the past. As if they could look through it, like an observer behind a one-way mirror, and study past human societies the way cultural anthropologist would do. In doing so, archaeologists have uncritically borrowed a programmatic agenda that was designed by, and for, researchers who study humans in the present-time and using data that has a scope, a sampling interval, a resolution, and a dimensionality that is orders of magnitude different than what archaeologists have access to. Unlike the study of cultural history, macroarchaeology, that is, the search for mega-scale patterns and processes in the archaeological record, is uncharted territory. The current theories of human culture have virtually nothing to say about what mega-trends could exist in the archaeological record, or about what mega-scale drivers, such as climate or biogeography, might have shaped the course of human history.
