Advertisement

Explanation pp 231-248 | Cite as

Explanation in Archaeology

Chapter
  • 281 Downloads
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 302)

Abstract

Archaeology is an interdisciplinary field of study with implications that reach far beyond academia. Today, most people recognize the close connections between archaeology and the state. Governments regulate, at least indirectly, most archaeological work since they are charged with preserving their countries’ cultural heritage. Archaeological excavation is so expensive that government money is required to support any large scale project. Archaeological work is politically important because archaeologists can trace the occupation of ethnic groups in particular territories over significant periods of time. By combining archaeological information about former inhabitants of a land with politicians’ contemporary cultural views about the continuity of property rights, governments attempt to challenge or to defend present political boundaries.1

Keywords

Scientific Explanation Archaeological Record System Explanation Statistical Explanation Archaeological Material 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Binford 1972]
    Binford, L., (1972). An Archaeological Perspective, New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
  2. [Binford and Binford 1968]
    Binford, S. R. and Binford, L., (eds.), (1968). Perspectives in Archaeology, Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  3. [Clarke 1968]
    Clarke, D., (1968). Analytical Archaeology, London, Methuen.Google Scholar
  4. [Collingwood 1929]
    Collingwood, R. (1929). An Autobiography, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. [Collingwood 1930]
    Collingwood, R., (1930). Archaeology ofRoman Britain, New York: Dial.Google Scholar
  6. [Conkey and Gero 1991]
    Conkey, M. and Gero, J., (eds.), (1991). Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. [Dunnell 1992]
    Dunnell, R., (1992). “Archaeology and evolutionary science”, Quandaries and Quests: Visions ofArchaeology’s Future, L. Wandsnider (ed.), 209–224, Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Occasional Paper No. 20.Google Scholar
  8. [Flannery 1968]
    Flannery, K., (1968). “Archaeological systems theory and early Mesoamerica”, in Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas, B. J. Meggars (ed.) 67–87, Washington D. C: Anthropological Society of Washington.Google Scholar
  9. [Flannery 1982]
    Flannery, K., (1982). “The golden Marshalltown: A parable for the archeology of the 1980’s”, American Anthropologist, 84: 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [Grayson 1983]
    Grayson, D., (1983). The Establishment of Human Antiquity, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. [Hempel 1965]
    Hempel, C., (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. [Hempel 1966]
    Hempel, C., (1966). Philosophy ofNatural Science, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  13. [Hodder 1987a]
    Hodder, I. (ed.), (1987). The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. [Hodder 1987b]
    Hodder, I., (ed.), (1987). Archaeology as Long-Term History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. [Kosso 1989]
    Kosso, P., (1989). “Science and objectivity”, Journal of Philosophy, 86: 245–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [Kosso 1991]
    Kosso, P., (1991). “Method in archaeology: Middle-range theory as hermeneutics”, American Antiquity, 56: 621–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [Kuhn 1962, 1970]
    Kuhn, T., (1962, 1970, 2nd. ed.). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. [Longacre 1968]
    Longacre, W., (1968). “Some aspects of prehistoric society in east-central Arizona”, in New Perspectives in Archaeology,. Binford, S. R. and Binford, L. (eds.) 89–102, Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  19. [Lyman et al. 1997]
    Lyman, L., O’Brien, M. J. and Dunnell, R. C., (eds.), (1997). The Rise and Fall of Culture History, New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  20. [Mach 1996/1885]
    Mach, E., (1996/1885 original German ed.). The Analysis of Sensations, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. [Patrik 1985]
    Patrik, L., (1985). “Is there an archaeological record?”, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 8: 27–62.Google Scholar
  22. [Pinsky and Wylie 1989]
    Pinsky, V. and Wylie, A. (eds.), (1989). Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. [Radcliffe-Brown 1952]
    Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., (1952). Structure and Function in Primitive Society, Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  24. [Rathje 1992]
    Rathje, W., (1992). Rubbish!: The Archaeology of Garbage, New York: Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. [Ronen 1995]
    Ronen, A., (1995). “Core, periphery and ideology in aceramic Cyprus, Quartär, 45–46, 177–206.Google Scholar
  26. [Sabloff et al. 1987]
    Sabloff, J., Binford, L., and McAnany, P., (1987). “Understanding the archaeological record”, Antiquity 61: 203–209.Google Scholar
  27. [Salmon 1980]
    Salmon, M., (1980). “Reply to Lowe and Barth”, American Antiquity, 45: 575–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [Salmon 1970]
    Salmon, W., (1970). Statistical Explanation and Statistical Relevance, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  29. [Salmon 1984]
    Salmon, W., (1984). Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. [Salmon 1998]
    Salmon, W., (1998). Causality and Explanation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [Salmon and Salmo]
    Salmon, M. and Salmon, W., (1979). “Alternative models 1979 of explanation”, American Anthropologist, 81,1: 61–73. Reprinted in [Salmon 1998].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [Schiffer 1976]
    Schiffer, M., (1976). Behavioral Archaeology, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  33. [Shanks and Tilley 1987]
    Shanks, M. and Tilley, C., (1987). Re-constructing Archeology. Theory and Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. [Shanks and Tilley 1988]
    Shanks, M. and Tilley, C., (1988). Social Theory and Archaeology, Albuquerque: New Mexico University Press.Google Scholar
  35. [Shanks and Tilley 1989]
    Shanks, M. and Tilley, C., (1989). “Archaeology into the 1990s”, Norwegian Archaeological Review, 22: 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [Tankersley 1998]
    Tankersley, K., (1998), “Variation in the early paleoindian economies of late pleistocene eastern North America”, American Antiquity, 63, 1: 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [Trigger 1989]
    Trigger, B., (1989). A History ofArchaeological Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. [Watson et al. 1971]
    Watson, P., Leblanc, S., and Redman, C., (1971). Explanation, in Archeology, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  39. [Watson 1990]
    Watson, R., (1990). “Ozymandias, king of kings: postprocessual radical archaeology as critique”, American Antiquity, 55: 673–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [Wilk 1999]
    Wilk, R., (1999). “Whose forest? Whose land? Whose ruins? Ethics and conservation”, Science and Engineering Ethics, 5:367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. [Willey and Sabloff Willey, G. and Sabloff, J., (1993). <i>A History ofAmerican</i> 1993]
    Archaeology 3rd ed., New York: W. H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
  42. [Wright 1976]
    Wright, L., (1976). Teleological Explanations, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  43. [Wylie 1989a]
    Wylie, A., (1989). “The interpretive dilemma”, in [Pinsky and Wylie 1989], pp.18–28.Google Scholar
  44. [Wylie 1989b]
    Wylie, A., (1989). “Archaeological cables and tacking: he implications of practice for Bernstein’s ‘options beyond objectivism and relativism”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 19: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. [Wylie 2001]
    Wylie, A., (2001). Thinkingfrom Things: Essays in the Philosophy ofArchaeology, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations