The nature of archaeological explanation

Citation: Fritz, J. and F. Plog (1970) The nature of archaeological explanation. American Antiquity 35:405-412 (RSS)
Internet Archive Scholar (search for fulltext): The nature of archaeological explanation
Tagged: Anthropology (RSS)

Summary

All archaeologists use laws in their work. One measure of what the science has achieved is the degree to which laws are explicitly formulated, explicitly tested, and explicitly used. Acquisition and employment of these laws require two different scientific methods, following the positivist view. Deduction is necessary for valid archaeological explanations, following DN Model.

The DN model requires laws to function as the premises against which expectations are explained. There are sets of ideas and assumptions in archaeology that function essentially as laws (e.g. how artifacts, site types are classified), though this archaeological theory is usually implicit rather than explicit. Fritz and Plog see current archaeological theory as prescientific- sets of statements that are plausible and accepted but have yet to be tested.

There are some problems fitting archaeological data into the DN model of scientific explanation, using an empiricist approach. Problems with traditional research designs in the empiricist approach: First, the empiricist approach assumes that all archaeologists collect all relevant data for research interests that are not explicit in the beginning of the research. In fact, no archaeologist does this. But this is not the case. Archaeologists collect the data that is relevant to the research, but also the data that they have been trained to understand and interpret as data. There is no guarantee that this data will answer the research problem that is being addressed, or even any potential questions that may arise during the course of the research. Second, the empiricist approach assumes that facts will speak for themselves. This assumes that if we have enough of the right data, the explanations will create themselves and make themselves apparent if the analysis and interpretation are done correctly.

These problems can be overcome by using the explanatory research design promoted by the authors, notably, instead of abstraction, the design concludes with evaluation of research. The parameters of the research (data collection, interpretation, analysis) must be set at the beginning of the research. The data that is analyzed must be relevant to that research and within the set parameters. Secondly, the explanatory approach does not assume that all the explanations will reveal themselves or that the data will "speak for itself".

It seems to the authors that many archaeological classifications are logical, and deductive, and therefore fit the definitions needed to agree with the DN/Hempelian model.