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/9780226631011.003.0001
- Subject:
- Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology
The way archaeologists test their hypotheses undermines their capacity to make valid inferences about the human past. Historical sciences seek to explain contemporary traces in terms of past causes. ...
More
The way archaeologists test their hypotheses undermines their capacity to make valid inferences about the human past. Historical sciences seek to explain contemporary traces in terms of past causes. Archaeologists settle on explanations when they are consistent with their data, irrespective of whether or not there are alternative explanations that are also consistent with the data at hand. The test of consistency leads to a confirmatory bias and leads to underdetermination and wrong results. In contrast, successful historical sciences work by formulating multiple mutually exclusive hypotheses and finding a smoking gun that will discriminate between them. Smoking guns must be found in nature: computer simulations, mathematical models, ethnographic analogies and experiments are not sources of smoking guns. Unlike experimental scientists, historical scientists such as archaeologists cannot use laboratory methods to manufacture new empirical evidences or to shield themselves from false positive or false negative results. This dependence on the quality of the archaeological record is not trivial. It means that the archaeological record dictates what can be learned about the past. Because of the quality of the archaeological record, there are research questions that we will never be able to answer beyond any reasonable doubts.Less
The way archaeologists test their hypotheses undermines their capacity to make valid inferences about the human past. Historical sciences seek to explain contemporary traces in terms of past causes. Archaeologists settle on explanations when they are consistent with their data, irrespective of whether or not there are alternative explanations that are also consistent with the data at hand. The test of consistency leads to a confirmatory bias and leads to underdetermination and wrong results. In contrast, successful historical sciences work by formulating multiple mutually exclusive hypotheses and finding a smoking gun that will discriminate between them. Smoking guns must be found in nature: computer simulations, mathematical models, ethnographic analogies and experiments are not sources of smoking guns. Unlike experimental scientists, historical scientists such as archaeologists cannot use laboratory methods to manufacture new empirical evidences or to shield themselves from false positive or false negative results. This dependence on the quality of the archaeological record is not trivial. It means that the archaeological record dictates what can be learned about the past. Because of the quality of the archaeological record, there are research questions that we will never be able to answer beyond any reasonable doubts.
