6th CE_TAG 19 programme: Man Makes Himself« Archaeological Narratives of the Past. 12th-13th September 2019, Leipzig, Germany (original) (raw)
Related papers
Archaeology borrows some ideas from semiotics which, in its reductionist variant, tends to see symbolic features as passive signs that only through the acts of human mind can acquire social value. As a consequence this confines research to strictly regional and time defined cultural entities characterized by linear evolution. My understanding of how to improve archaeological explanation, relative to the outlined above conceptual limitations, is that there is certain logic of how individuals and communities get to know human and natural worlds (establish epistemic relations) and on this base how past communities were able to create their own ontologies through which they symbolically represent and exchange their accumulated bodies of knowledge. This study reveals the intricate ways of interaction of modernist views on social evolution and points to the means through which the dichotomies raised by traditional archaeological knowledge can be deconstructed.
Walking among ancient trees. Studies in honour of Ryszard Grygiel and Peter Bogucki on the 45th anniversary of their research collaboration, 2022
Although various interpretive theories have been developed in prehistoric archaeology in the course of research history, modes of scientific explanation still play only a subordinate role in German language literature in prehistory. Here, the self-understanding of a comparative science is dominating. The purpose of comparisons is to demonstrate patterns and regularities that enable to find law-like explanations for the findings. However, strict laws on subjects such as history, archaeology, sociology, but also in many natural sciences such as biology are very rare because the behavior of evolutionary evolving systems is explored. Especially in historical research, explanations of certain attained conditions are often very complex and they must relate to an arsenal of temporally and causally preceding motivational circumstances, external facts and unpredictable events. One sort of context- or process-related explanations are narrative explanations. In my contribution, first of all, I would like to discuss the systematics of explanations in prehistoric archaeology in general. The focus is not on established archaeological schools of thought, but on scientific theory in the narrower sense. Secondly, although in this discipline explanations that relate to the motivational background of agents (intentional explanations) are not possible, I would like to argue that nevertheless, forms of narrative explanations are possible there.
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
J. J. Miera (ed.), Narrating the Past: Archaeolological epistemology, explanation and communication. Proceedings of the 6th annual conference of the Central European Theoretical Archaeology Group, held at the University of Leipzig (Germany) on 12–13 September 2019, 2023
The classical works of scientifi c theory originate largely from the fi eld of natural sciences. There, usually implicitly, a common presupposition has developed: science is characterised by the ability to predict and explain the realities of the world through general laws. Against this background, history and archaeology pose a challenge for scientifi c theory. Nevertheless, procedures of scientifi c explanation still play only a subordinate role in theory, especially regarding the archaeologies in German-speaking countries, where the self-understanding of a comparative discipline dominates. The ultimate purpose of comparisons is to demonstrate regularities that make it possible to fi nd nomological explanations for the source material. However, it is often overlooked that strict laws in history, archaeology, and sociology, but also in many natural sciences, such as biology, are very rare, because the behaviour of diachronic-adaptive (self-regulatory) systems is explored. Especially in historical research, explanations of certain attained conditions are often so complex that they must relate to an arsenal of temporally and causally preceding intentions, external facts, and events. Such context-or process-related explanations are necessarily narrative in character; such explanations are also common in many other fi elds of knowledge such as medicine, and especially in psychology or psychoanalysis. Talking about narration, however, quickly leads to the problem that diff erent things may be meant even though the same words are used. In my contribution, fi rst of all, I would like to discuss the systematics of explanations in prehistoric archaeology in general. Secondly, although explanations in this discipline that relate to the motivational background of actors (the so-called 'intentional' explanations) are not possible, I would like to argue that, nevertheless, forms of narrative explanation are possible and even necessary. Thirdly, I defend narrative explanations against the notion of narrative constructivism which has been common in some historical research over recent decades.
On the nature of theoretical archaeology and archaeological theory
Archaeological dialogues, 2006
In this paper I want to make some general comments on the state of archaeological theory today. I argue that a full answer to the question 'does archaeological theory exist?' must be simultaneously 'yes' and 'no'. Yes, there is, demonstrably, a discourse called archaeological theory, with concrete structures such as individuals and schools of thought more or less substantively engaged with it; no, in that the claims for a distinctive way of thinking about the world in theoretical terms specific to archaeology, to which most or even the largest group of archaeologists would willingly or knowingly subscribe, are overstated. In particular there is a lack of correspondence between theoretical backgrounds and affiliations that are overtly cited by archaeologists, on the one hand, and, on the other, the deeper underlying assumptions and traditions that structure their work and condition its acceptance. These underlying traditions stretch from field habits to underlying paradigms or discourses. I will explore this latter point with reference to the manner in which agency theory and phenomenology have been developed in archaeology. My conclusion suggests some elements of a way forward for archaeological theory; it is striking that many of these elements have been addressed in recent issues of Archaeological dialogues.
Archaeological theories and archaeological sciences
Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Theory (eds. A. Gardner, M. Lake and U. Sommer)
Archaeological theory and archaeological science have traditionally been characterized as concerned with different issues and unable to interact productively. Here we present a brief history of the relationship between these two subdisciplines, and some clarification of the differences between scientific archaeology and archaeological science. We then focus on examples of recent and current projects to argue that we should no longer differentiate between archaeologists on the one hand and archaeological scientists on the other, since many leading practitioners of archaeological sciences are both. We contend that science-based archaeology today plays an important role in the formulation of new theories, and in challenging long-standing assumptions in archaeology and numerous other fields (e.g. ecology). Archaeological science is central to contemporary archaeological theory and practice, and will become increasingly important in the foreseeable future.
Archaeology and the Historical Understanding
2018
gedruckt mit Unterstützung der graduiertenschule "Human development in landscapes", Kiel und der deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (dFg), Bonn. die deutsche nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der deutschen nationalbibliografie. detailliertere informationen sind im internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.