Statistical Reasoning and Archaeological Theorizing: The Double-Bind Problem (original) (raw)
Related papers
The utility of mathematical constructs in building archaeological theory
1990
The intent in this review is to show that lack of substantive, axiomatic like theories in archaeology is neither inherent to the discipline, nor to the capabilities of the discipline's practitioners, nor to the alleged irrelevancy of axiomatically framed arguments for an archaeologically based theory. Rather, mathematically based techniques in the form of statistical methods and modeling have already been well established as an essential part of archaeological data analysis. What is lacking, though, is application of mathematical formalism to the theoretical issues of archaeology, despite recognition of the value of axiomatically or formally expressed theory as shown in the above quotes. I suggest that the disparity between (1) the acceptance of statistical methods and (2) the lack of application of mathematical formalism stems from inadequate understanding of the way mathematics provides not only a language for the expression of relationships, but also a means for reasoning about their consequences, hence a language for extending archaeological reasoning.
A Logic of Archaeological Inference
Hardly a pure science, history is closer to animal husbandry than it is to mathematics in that it involves selective breeding. The principal difference between the husbandryman and the historian is that the former breeds sheep or cows or such, and the latter breeds (assumed) facts. The husbandryman uses his skills to enrich the future, the historian uses his to enrich the past. Both are usually up to their ankles in bullshit.' (Tom Robbins, Another roadside attraction, 1971) The scope of archaeology If twenty years ago archaeology was at a crossroads, then today it languishes in a traffic jam somewhere in a spaghetti-like motorway interchange, confronted by a vast array of choices, confounded by the inertia of self-consciousness and complacency. In a modern world where the smart money is on strange attractors, phase space and fractal geometry, archaeologists are just beginning to discover that their subject might relate to the real world, a world that is probably thirty years out of date. At a time when archaeologists should be looking to the past for sophisticated expressions of non-linear behaviour, there are those who say that the past is too dark a secret to unveil. I feel that there is an infrastructural problem: namely that there is no infrastructure; there is no mechanistic, Newtonian framework to fall back on, no quantum theory, no periodic table for the archaeologist. There is barely any philosophy, and that which exists assumes, to continue the metaphor, that everyone knows which side of the road to drive on.
Statistical Inference in Archaeology: Are We Confident?
Rethinking Israel: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel in Honor of Israel Finkelstein, 2017
We deal with the general issue of handling statistical data in archaeology for the purpose of deducing sound, justified conclusions. The employment of various quantitative and statistical methods in archaeological practice has existed from its beginning as a systematic discipline in the 19th century (Drower 1995). Since this early period, the focus of archaeological research has developed and shifted several times. The last phase in this process, especially common in recent decades, is the proliferation of collaboration with various branches of the exact and natural sciences. Many new avenues of inquiry have been inaugurated, and a wealth of information has become available to archaeologists. In our view, the plethora of newly obtained data requires a careful reexamination of existing statistical approaches and a restatement of the desired focus of some archaeological investigations. We are delighted to dedicate this article to Israel Finkelstein, our teacher, adviser, colleague, and friend, who is one of the father figures of this ongoing scientific revolution in archaeology (e.g., Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010, Finkelstein et al. 2012, 2015), and wish him many more fruitful years of research.
Inference to the Best Explanation: A Common and Effective Form of Archaeological Reasoning
American Antiquity, 2007
and postprocessual archaeologists implicitly employ the same epistemological system to evaluate the worth of different explanations: inference to the best explanation. This is good since inference to the best explanation is the most effective epistemological approach to archaeological reasoning available. Underlying the logic of inference to the best expla nation is the assumption that the explanation that accounts for the most evidence is also most likely to be true. This view of explanation often reflects the practice of archaeological reasoning better than either the hypothetico-deductive method or hermeneutics. This article explores the logic of inference to the best explanation and provides clear criteria to determine what makes one explanation better than another. Explanations that are empirically broad, general, modest, conservative, This may seem an odd question. However, when viewed against the backdrop of archaeological the ory, it is an important one. At two points in archae ology's recent disciplinary history, theoretical rev olutions are said to have occurred: first in the 1960s with the new archaeology (later termed processual archaeology) and again in the 1980s with post processual archaeology. In both cases, proponents claimed that new approaches to archaeology that signified a radical break with the past were being developed. If the rhetoric of the rival camps is taken seriously, processual and postprocessual archaeol ogists were engaged in wholly different enterprises and should not have been able to have any pro ductive discourse.1 At first glance, the proces sual/postprocessual debates would seem to fit this characterization well. However, today many 603 604 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 72, No. 4,2007
Introduction: archaeological inferences and computational spaces
of the introduction to Bevan, A. and Lake, M. (eds.) Computational Approaches to Archaeological Spaces, Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Spatial analysis in archaeology today encompasses a wide range of experiential, fieldwork-based, deterministic and/or stochastic approaches that vary considerably in their intended purpose and theoretical underpinnings. Although Hodder and Orton (1976) and both provided book--length treatment of the application of statistical and/or simulation approaches to spatial analysis in archaeology many years ago, the rapid uptake of computational methods such as Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and related methods in archaeology from the late 1980s and early 90s marks a disciplinary step change, for enthusiasts and critics alike, increasing by an order of magnitude the quantity of spatial data that could be managed and analysed, especially for those working at the scale of entire archaeological landscapes. The 1990s saw a string of methodologically focused edited volumes covering the development of archaeological GIS (Allen et al. 1990, Lock and Stancic 1995, Aldenderfer and Maschner 1996. The most recent in this vein is now over 10 years old (Lock 2000), perhaps partly reflecting the more mainstream adoption of 'standard' GIS techniques, as also evidenced by the appearance of textbooks on archaeological GIS (Wheatley and Gillings 2002, Conolly and Lake 2006, Chapman 2006) and recommendations for archaeological predictive modelling (Kamermans et al. 2009; Wescott and Brandon 2000, Mehrer and Wescott 2005). Since 2000 a major focus of methodological development in GIS has been integration with computer simulation, particularly agent--based modelling; the papers in Gimblett (2002) provide heritage management applications of this technology, while more research-oriented examples can be found in Kohler and Gummerman (2000). More generally, however, the last decade has seen something of a dichotomy in the presentation of new computational techniques as either forming part of something labelled "Digital Archaeology" (e.g. Evans and Daly 2006; and more widely the "Digital Humanities"; Bodenhamer et al. 2010) or as the handmaiden of more explicitly model--based (Kohler and van der Leeuw 2007) or spatial analytical (Robertson et al 2006) approaches to archaeological inference (see also McCoy and Ladfoged 2009). Gary Lock convincingly argued that the development of computer applications in archaeology has always reflected the entanglement of both methodological and wider theoretical advances, as documented in detail by others for the specific examples of GIS--based visibility analysis (Lake and Woodman 2003) and computer simulation (several papers in Costopoulos and Lake 2010). We are thus very conscious that any collection of computational approaches to archaeology will likewise be `of the moment', so it worth elaborating what makes this a particularly exciting moment at which to be presenting such a collection. Two broad sets of developments in the computational and social sciences over the last few years have conspired to create something of a research watershed and topical point of departure for a volume of this kind. The first set combines (a) some practical thresholds now reached in an otherwise continuous trajectory of growth in modern computing, (b) the Clarke, D.L., ed. 1977. Spatial Archaeology, London: Academic Press.
The Marriage of Archaeological Science and Social Theory
In this course, we will examine the successes and failures within the relationship between science and theory. Students will be introduced to some literature from the history of science and philosophy of science in an attempt to understand how scientific interpretations can be social constructions and how our perceptions about the validity and ‘truth’ of science were constructed. By questioning the origin of these paradigms, we can better comprehend our dependence on scientific analysis, as it informs our archaeological interpretations. We will critically evaluate topical approaches in leading journals, such as Archaeological Science, Field Archaeology, Archaeological Method and Theory and Social Archaeology, focusing on environmental approaches, survey methods and certain material assemblages, such as ceramics, plant, animals, and soils. What can these assemblages inform us about the people who produced and used them? Can high-tech analytical methods contribute to a deeper understanding of the past or just muddy the waters? Theoretically, we will follow Latour, Dupre and Foucault, to challenge the objectivity of ‘science’ and value of archaeological taxonomies, and question archaeological epistemologies as it relates to the construction of archaeological narratives. In the second part of this course, we will be dealing directly with archaeological assemblages and pushing the traditional interpretations further into the social realm. We will be working directly with the archaeological assemblages of the graduate students, specifically addressing the science and theory issues applicable to their research. The syllabus will be adjusted in the first week to accommodate the specific research problems presented by the graduate students.
2015
"What is archaeology about?" asks the professional mathematician shocked by the use of numbers, functions, equations, probabilities, set-theoretic propositions and the like by archaeologists. The answer is pretty simple. "Archaeology is what archaeologists do" . We excavate and fi nd stones, pottery sherds, animal and human bones, the remains of ancient buildings, what our ancestors made and discarded at some time, etc. These are our objects of study, but not our objective. The goal of archaeology is to describe the past, that is to say, to fi nd out what people did some time ago and why. Then, where is the place for mathematics? Why a book with such an unusual title: "Mathematics and Archaeology"?