Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T03:26:26.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Scientific Nature of Postprocessualism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Christine S. VanPool  and
Todd L. VanPool
Christine S. VanPool
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico87131-1086
Todd L. VanPool
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico87131-1086
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The compatibility of processual and postprocessual archaeology has been heavily debated. This discussion is frequently phrased in terms of scientific vs. nonscientific/humanistic archaeology. We suggest that the "postprocessual debate" is based on a mischaracterization of science that is pervasive in archaeology, and is largely unnecessary when a more reasonable view of the nature of science is considered. To demonstrate this point, we begin our discussion by identifying several commonalities within most postprocessual approaches to provide a foundation for our discussion. We then consider the two classic criteria used to differentiate science and nonscience, Baconian inductivism and falsification, and demonstrate why these views lead to an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of science. We next examine seven attributes that are commonly accepted as characteristics of science in order to provide a more accurate view of the nature and workings of science. Based on this discussion, we argue that much postprocessual research is in fact scientific, and we ultimately conclude that postprocessual approaches as currently applied can contribute to a scientific understanding of the archaeological record.

Résumé

Résumé

La compatibilidad del procesualismo y postprocesualismo se ha discutido extensivamente. Con frecuencia este debate supone una oposición fundamental entre la arqueología científica y la arqueología humanística. Sugeremos que el debate procesualpostprocesual se deriva de un entendimiento falso del método científico, desgraciadamente muy común en la arqueología, y que es posible tomar una perspectiva más balanceada. Para desarrollar nuestras ideas, comenzamos con identificar aspectos comunes de la mayoría de las posiciones teoréticas del postprocesualismo. Consideramos los dos criterios tipicamente usados para distinguir lo científico de lo no cientifico, el razonamiento inductivo de Bacon y la falsificación, y demostramos que estas perspectivas nos dan un entendimiento incompleto y distorsionado de la ciencia. Identificamos siete cualidades de la ciencia comunamente aceptadas para mejor entender cómo funciona el método científico. En base a esta discusión, proponemos que imtchos estudios postprocesuales merecen llamarse cientificos, y que el postprocesualismo puede contribuir al entendimiento científico de los restos arqueológicos.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , January 1999 , pp. 33 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Arnold, B. 1990 The Past as Propaganda: Totalitarian Archaeology in Nazi Germany. Antiquity 64: 464–478.Google Scholar
Bapty, I. 1990 Nietzche, Derrida, and Foucault: Re-excavating the Meaning of Archaeology. In Archaeology After Structuralism: Post-Structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology, edited by Bapty, I. and Yates, T., pp. 240–276. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Bapty, I. and Yates, T. 1990 Archaeology After Structuralism: Post-Structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Bartley, W.W. III 1968 Theories of the Demarcation Between Science and Metaphysics. In Problems in the Philosophy of Science, edited by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A., pp. 40–119. North-Holland Publishing, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawden, G. 1989 The Andean State as a State of Mind. Journal of Anthropological Research 45: 327–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawden, G. 1995 The Structural Paradox Moche Culture as Political Ideology. Latin American Antiquity 6: 255–273.Google Scholar
Bawden, G. 1996 The Moche. Blackwell Publishers, London.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1968 Archaeology Perspectives. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by Binford, S. R. and Binford, L.R. pp. 5–32. Aldine Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1972 An Archaeological Perspective. Seminar Press, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1982 Objectivity-Explanation-Archaeology 1981. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by Renfrew, C., Rowlands, M. J., and Segraves, B. A., pp. 125–138. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1986 In Pursuit of the Future. In American Archaeology Past and Future, edited by Meltzer, D. J., Fowler, D. D., and Sabloff, J. A., pp. 459–479. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1987 Data, Relativism, and Archaeological Science. Man 22: 391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1989 Debating Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J. 1991 Postmodernism, Rhetoric and Scholasticism at TAG: The Current State of British Archaeology. Antiquity 65: 274–278.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J. 1992 Response to Comments by J. Thomas and C. Tilley. Antiquity 66: 111–114.Google Scholar
Bleicher, J. 1980 Contemporary Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as . Mdthod, Philosophy and Critique. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Boone, J. L., and Smith, E. A. 1998 Is It Evolution Yet? A Critique of Evolutionary Archaeology. Current Anthropology, Supplement 39: S141–S157.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Clark, G.A. 1993 Paradigms in Science and Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 1: 203–234.Google Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1979 Analytical A rchaeologist. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Conkey, M. 1990 Experimenting with Style in Archaeology. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by Conkey, M. and Hastorf, C., pp. 5–18. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Conkey, M. and Spector, J. 1984 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 1–38.Google Scholar
Cowgill, G. 1993 Beyond Criticizing New Archaeology. American Anthropologist 95: 551–573.Google Scholar
Duhem, P. 1962 The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Atheneum, New York.Google Scholar
Duke, P. 1995 Working through Theoretical Tension in Contemporary Archaeology: A Practical Attempt from Southwestern Colorado. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 201–229.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43: 192–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1980 Evolutionary Theory and Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 35–99. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1982 Science, Social Science and Common Sense: The Agonizing Dilemma of Modern Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research 38: 1–25.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1989 Aspects of the Application of Evolutionary Theory in Archaeology. In Archaeological Thought in America, edited by Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C., pp. 35–19. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earle, T.K. 1991 Toward a Behavioral Archaeology. In Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by Preucel, R.W., pp. 17- 29. Occasional Paper No. 10. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Earle, T., and Preucel, R. 1987 Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique. Current Anthropology 28: 501–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelstad, E. 1991 Images of Power and Contradiction: Feminist Theory and Post-processual Archaeology. Antiquity 65: 502–514.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. 1975 Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. New Left Books, London.Google Scholar
Fields, D.M. 1995 Postmodernism. Premise 2(8): 5–14.Google Scholar
Flannery, K.V. 1973 Archeology with a Capital S. In Research and Theory in Current Archaeology, edited by Redman, C.L., pp. 47–58. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Flannery, K.V. 1986 Guild Naquitz: Archaic Foraging and Early Agriculture in Oaxaca, Mexico. Academic Press, Orlando.Google Scholar
Flax, J. 1990 Thinking Fragments: Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and Postmoderneism in the Contemporary West. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Fotiadis, M. 1994 What is Archaeology's “Mitigated Objectivism” Mitigated By? Comments on Wylie. American Antiquity 59: 545–555.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1970 The Order of Things: An Anthology of the Human Sciences. Vintage Books, New York.Google Scholar
Fried, M. 1967 Evolution of Political Society. Random House, New York.Google Scholar
Fritz, J.M. and Plog, F.T. 1970 The Nature of Archaeological Explanation. American Antiquity 35: 405–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J. M. 1983 Gender Bias in Archaeology: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. In Analyzing Gender, edited by Gero, J. M., Lacy, D., and Blakey, M. L., pp. 51–57. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Gero, J. M. 1991 Gender Divisions of Labor in the Construction of Archaeological Knowledge. In The Archaeology of Gender, edited by Walde, D. and D, N.. Willows. Proceedings of the 22° Annual Chacmool Conference. Archaeological Association of Calgary.Google Scholar
Gibbon, G. 1989 Explanation in Archaeology. Basil Blackwell, New York.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. 1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press, California.Google Scholar
Handsman, R. F, and Leone, M.P. 1989 Living History and Critical Archaeology in the Reconstruction of the Past. In Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology, edited by Pinsky, V. and Wylie, A., pp. 117–135. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. 1958 Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1965 Aspects of Scientific Explanations. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hegmon, M. 1992 Archeological Research on Style. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 517–36.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1982 Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1985 Post-Processual Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory vol. 8, pp. 1–26. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1986 Reading the Past: Current Approaches and Interpretations in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1989 Comments on Archaeology into the 1990s. Norwegian Archaeological Review 22: 15–18.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1991a Processual Archaeology and the Current Debate. In Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by Preucel, R. W., pp. 30–41. Occasional Paper No. 10. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1991b Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role. American Antiquity 56: 7–18.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1992 Theory and Practice in Archaeology. Routledge, London and New York. Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1997 “Always Momentary, Fluid and Flexible“: Towards a Reflexive Excavation Methodology. Antiquity 71: 691–700.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., Shanks, M, Alexandri, A., Buchli, A.. Carman, J., 1995 Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. 1988 Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Kelley, J. H. and Hanen, M. P. 1988 Archaeology and the Methodology of Science. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1982 Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1992 The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Knapp, A.B. 1996 Archaeology without Gravity: Postmodernism and the Past. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 127–158.Google Scholar
Kohl, P. 1993 Limits to a Post Processual Archaeology. In Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? edited by Yoffee, N. and Sheratt, A., pp. 13–20.Google Scholar
Kosso, P. 1991 Method in Archaeology: Middle-Range Theory as Hermeneutics. American Antiquity 56: 621–627.Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. L. 1952 The Nature of Culture. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1957 The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. 1970 Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, edited by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A.. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (editor) 1989 Archaeological Thought in America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lauden, L. 1977 Progress and its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Leonard, R. D., and Jones, G. T. 1987 Elements of an Inclusive Evolutionary Model for Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 54: 491–503.Google Scholar
Leone, M. P. 1986 Symbolic, Structural, and Critical Archaeology. In American Archaeology. Past and Future, edited by Meltzer, D.I., Fowler, D.D., and Sabloff, J.A.. pp. 415–438. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Leone, M. P. 1991 Material Theory and the Formation of Questions in Archaeology. In Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by R.W. Preucel. Occasional Papers No. 10: 235–241. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Leone, M. P., Potter, P. B. Jr., and Shackel, P. A. 1987 Toward a Critical Archaeology. Current Anthropology 28: 283–302.Google Scholar
Leone, M. P., and Preucel, R. W. 1992 Archaeology in a Democratic Society: A Critical Theory Perspective. In Quandaries and Quests: Vision of Archaeology's Future, edited by Wandsnider, LuAnn, pp. 115–135. Occasional Paper No. 20, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Little, B. J. 1994 Consider the Hermaphroditic Mind: Comments on “The Interplay of Evidential Constraints and Political Interests: Recent Archaeological Research on Gender.” American Antiquity 59: 539–544.Google Scholar
Macquairrie, J., and Robinson., E. 1962 Translation of Heidegger, M. Being and Time. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Maschner, H. D. G. (editor) 1996 Darwinian Archaeologies. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, G. 1964 The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities. In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. III, edited by Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G., pp. 3–14. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Mayr., E. 1982 The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mayr., E. 1997 This is Biology: The Science of the Living World. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
McGuire, R. H., and Paynter, R. (eds.) 1991 The Archaeology of Inequality. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Morgan., C. 1973 Archaeology and Explanation. World Archaeology 4: 259–276.Google Scholar
Morgan., C. 1974 Explanation and Scientific Archaeology. World Archaeology 6: 135–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller Vollmer, K. 1994 The Hermeneutics Reader. Continuum, New York.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. 1979 The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
O'Shea, 1992 Review of Ian Hodder's The Domestication of Europe. American Anthropologist 94: 752–753.Google Scholar
Patterson, T.C. 1989 History and Postprocessual Archaeology. Man 24: 555–566.Google Scholar
Patterson, T.C. 1990 Some Theoretical Tensions Within and Between the Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 189–200.Google Scholar
Pinsky, V., and Wylie, A. (editors) 1989 Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology: Essays in the Philosophy, History and Socio-Politics of Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1961 The Poverty of Historicism. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1962 Conjectures and Refutations. Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1980 The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Preucel, R.W. 1991a Comments to Richard Watson's What the New Archaeology Has Acctmiplished. Current Anthropology 32: 287–288.Google Scholar
Preucel, R.W. 199lb The Philosophy of Archaeology. In Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by Preucel, R.W.. Occasional Papers No. 10: 17–29. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Preucel, R.W. 1995 The Postprocessual Condition. Journal of Archaeological Research 3: 147–175.Google Scholar
Preucel, R. W. (editor) 1991 Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past. Occasional Paper No. 10. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Preucel, R. W., and Hodder, I. (editors) 1996 Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: A Reader. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. 1961 From a Logical Point of View. Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
Redman, C. L. 1991 Distinguished Lecture in Archaeology: In Defense of the Seventies—The Adolescence of the New Archaeology. American Anthropologist 93: 295–307.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1989 Comments on Archaeology into the 1990s. Norwegian Archaeological Review 22: 33–41.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1973 The Explanation of Cultural Change: Models in Prehistory. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Rosenau, P. M. 1992 Postmodernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Sackett, J. R. 1982 Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 59–112.Google Scholar
Sackett, J. R. 1985 Style and Ethnicity in the Kalahari: A Reply to Weissner. American Antiquity 50: 154–159.Google Scholar
Saitta, D.J. 1992 Radical Archaeology and Middle-Range Theory Methodology. Antiquity 66: 886–897.Google Scholar
Salmon, M. H. 1982a Philosophy and Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Salmon, M. H. 1982b Models of Explanation: Two Views. In Theories and Explanation in Archaeology: The Southampton Conference, edited by Renfrew, C., pp. 35–14. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. 1984 Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B. 1988 The Structure of Archaeological Theory. American Antiquity 53: 461–185.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B. 1991 The Portable Radio in American Life. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B. 1995 Behavioral Archaeology, First Principles. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B. 1996 Some Relationships between Behavioral and Evolutionary Archaeologies. American Antiquity 61: 643–662.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. 1992 Experiencing The Past: On the Character of Archaeology. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. and Hodder, I. 1995 Processual, Postprocessual and Interpretive Archaeologies. In Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past, edited by Hodder, I. et al., Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1987 Social Theory and Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1992 Re-constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Simpson, G.G. 1963 Historical Science. In The Fabric of Geology, edited by Albritton, C.C. Jr., pp. 24–18. Freeman & Couper, Stanford.Google Scholar
Simpson, G.G. 1970 Uniformitariansim: An Inquiry into Principle, Theory, and Method in Geohistory and Biohistory. In Essays in Evolution and Genetics in Honor of Theodosius Dobzhansky, edited by Hecht, M.K. and Steeve, W.C., pp. 43–96. Appleton, New York.Google Scholar
Simpson, G.G. 1995 The Clay Cooking Pot: An Exploration of Women's Technology. In Expanding Archaeology, edited by Skibo, J., Walker, W., and Nielson, A., pp. 80–91. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Skibo, J. M., Walker, W., and Nielsen, A. (editors) 1995 Expanding Archaeology. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1980 Evolution, Population Thinking and Essentialism. Philosophy of Science 47: 350–383.Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1988 Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution, and Inference. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1993 Philosophy of Biology. Westview Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
Spencer, C. S. 1997 Evolutionary Approaches in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 5: 209–264.Google Scholar
Stace, W.T. 1967 Man Against Darkness. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. R. 1978 Why is Astrology a Psuedoscience? Proceedings of Philosophy of Science Association 1: 223–224.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 1989 Archaeology. 2nd ed. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Fort Worth, Texas.Google Scholar
Thomas, I. 1991 Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Thomas, I. 1996 Time, Culture and Identity. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Tilley, C. 1992 Book Review of Debating Archaeology. American Antiquity 57: 164–166.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. 1988 Do Sub-Microscopic Entities Exist? In Philosophy of Science, edited by Klemke, E.D., Hollinger, R., and Kline, A. D., pp. 202–206. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. 1989a A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. 1989b Comments on Archaeology into the 1990s. Norwegian Archaeological Review 22: 28–31.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. 1989c Hyperrelativism, Responsibility, and the Social Sciences. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 26: 776–797.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. 1991 Post-Processual Developments in Anglo-American Archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review 24: 65–76.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. 1993 Marxism in Contemporary Western Archaeology. In Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 5, edited by Schiffer, M.B., pp. 159–200. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Tschauner, H. 1996 Middle-Range Theory, Behavioral Archaeology, and Postempiricist Philosophy of Science in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 1–20.Google Scholar
Tuggle, H. D., Townsend, A. H., and Riley, T. J. 1972 Laws, Systems, and Research Designs: A Discussion of Explanation in Archaeology. American Antiquity 37: 3–12.Google Scholar
Vinsrygg, S. 1988 Archaeology—As If People Mattered. A Discussion of Humanistic Archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review 21: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, P. J. 1991 A Parochial Primer: The New Dissonance As Seen from the Midcontinental United States. In Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by Preucel, R. W., pp. 265–275. Occasional Paper No. 10. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Watson, P. J. 1993 Archaeology and Science. In Archaeology: Discovering our Past, edited by Sharer, R.J. and Ashmore, W., pp. 38–10. Mayfield Publishing, Mountain View, California.Google Scholar
Watson, P. J., and Fotiadas, M. 1990 The Razor's Edge: Symbolic-Structuralist Archaeology and the Expansion of Archaeological Inference. American Anthropologist 92: 613–629.Google Scholar
Watson, P.J., LeBlanc, S., and Redman, R. 1971 Explanation in Archaeology: An Explicitly Scientific Approach. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Watson, P.J., LeBlanc, S., and Redman, R. 1984 Archaeological Explanation: The Scientific Method in Archaeology. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Watson, R. 1990 Ozymandias, King of Kings: Postprocessual Radical Archaeology as Critique. American Antiquity 92: 673–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, R. 1991 What the New Archaeology Has Accomplished. Current Anthropology 32: 275–291.Google Scholar
Wiessner, P. 1983 Style and Information on Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48: 253–275.Google Scholar
Wiessner, P. 1985 Style or Isochrestic Variation? A Reply to Sackett. American Antiquity 50: 154–159.Google Scholar
Wilier, D., and Wilier, J. 1973 Systematic Empiricism: Critique of a Pseudoscience. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
Woodward, J., and Goodstein, D. 1996 Conduct, Misconduct, and the Structure of Science. American Scientist 84: 479–190.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1992a Feminist Theories of Social Power: Some Implications for a Processual Archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review 25: 51–68.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1992b The Interplay of Evidential Constraints and Political Interests: Recent Archaeological Research on Gender. American Antiquity 57: 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, A. 1993 A Proliferation of New Archaeologies: “Beyond Objectivism and Relativism.” In Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda?, edited by Yoffee, N. and Sherratt, A., pp. 20–26. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Yates, T. 1990 Archaeology through the Looking-Glass. In Archaeology After Structuralism: Post- Structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology, edited by Bapty, I. and Yates, T., pp. 153–204. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Yoffee, N. 1992 Too Many Chiefs? In Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda?, edited by Yoffee, N. and Sherratt, A., pp.60-78. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Yoffee, N. 1993 Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar