(Week 3-1) Notes on Archaeology: Scientific Method, Theory Levels, and Paradigms
Archaeology as a Science: core ideas
Archaeology is often labeled a soft or social science, but it uses the scientific method and can be objective and rigorous like chemistry or biology.
The scientific method is a cyclical, repeatable process to answer questions and test theories.
Key claim: science can disprove ideas and refine explanations, but it cannot absolutely prove anything to be true.
The method emphasizes objectivity, systematic testing, data collection, and openness to revision in light of new evidence.
The Scientific Method: basics and structure
Core sequence (as presented): identify a problem or question → formulate a hypothesis (one or more) → determine what data the test should produce → design and conduct the test (data collection) → analyze data → decide whether data supports or refutes the hypothesis → revise and repeat if needed.
Hypothesis is an educated guess based on observations and background information; often framed as an if-then statement.
A successful test requires predicting what results would look like if the hypothesis is true.
Data collection questions: what kind of data? what methods? experiment vs. observation?
Testing outcomes:
If data align with expectations, the hypothesis is supported but not proven.
If data contradict the hypothesis, revise or develop a new hypothesis and test again.
Even well-supported hypotheses remain open to future revision with new data.
The nature of science:
There are no absolute truths; there are well-supported explanations.
The method is cyclical: retest with new data or new questions as technology and understanding advance.
These points underpin the idea that archaeology, though a soft science in public discourse, can be rigorous and objective when applying the method.
Case study: Emeryville Shell Mound and Hildegard Howard (1929)
Emeryville Shell Mound (East Bay, between Berkeley and Oakland):
Height: about ; footprint about across.
Heavily disturbed: amusement park/dance hall on top, then a paint factory, now a shopping mall.
Excavations: 1902; late 1920s; 1999 (paint factory demolished for redevelopment).
Hildegard Howard (paleoorthologist) studied bird bones from the mound in 1929.
Research question: Was the shell mound occupied year-round or seasonally?
Problem prior researchers faced: estimating age based on accumulation rate depended on occupancy seasonality; if people lived only seasonally, less material would accumulate, biasing age estimates.
Howard’s hypothesis: the mound was occupied year-round.
Test design:
Look for birds that would indicate seasonality; if birds typical of multiple seasons present, occupancy likely year-round.
Seasonal groups used: waterfowl (winter) and juvenile cormorants (summer).
Findings and conclusion:
Waterfowl and juvenile cormorants were present throughout the mound from earliest to latest occupations.
Conclusion: occupancy was year-round; hypothesis supported.
Implications: If only winter birds had appeared, the hypothesis would have been revised to seasonal occupancy; stronger confirmation comes from multiple, independent lines of evidence.
Note on scientific practice: even well-supported hypotheses invite further testing and replication with new data or methods.
The archaeology chart: three levels of theory and the context
The chart distinguishes three kinds of theory in archaeology, ranked as low, middle, and high level, not by difficulty but by the order in which they are addressed in investigations.
Low level theory: observations and interpretations arising from hands-on field and lab work; moves from material remains to observations and interpretations.
Middle level theory: links archaeological observations to the human behaviors or natural processes that produced them.
High level theory: seeks to answer large, general why questions about the human condition; connects middle level conclusions to broad patterns
Example progression:
Low level: observe a shell fragment; identify it as a shell bead based on material properties and measurements.
Middle level: explain how the shell beads got to the site (e.g., trade routes) and what human behaviors produced their presence.
High level: explain broad questions about social organization, exchange networks, or regional interaction—why such trade occurred, and what it suggests about past societies.
Definitions (as given in the lecture):
Low level theory: observations and interpretations from field/lab work.
Middle level theory: a hypothesis linking observations to the human behaviors or natural processes that produced them.
High level theory: theories aiming to answer large, general questions about human history and behavior; often require multiple lines of evidence.
The role of observational-to-explanatory leaps:
Observations (shell bead) require low level theory to justify the identification.
The explanation of how beads arrived at the site requires middle level theory (e.g., trade routes).
Broader questions about why societies organized trade in certain ways drive high level theory formation.
Paradigms influence theory choices:
Paradigms are overarching worldviews that shape how researchers interpret data and ask questions.
Two main paradigms in archaeology:
Processual archaeology (processual, or sometimes called processual-plus in modern usage): emphasizes scientific, environmental and adaptive explanations; culture as a system; external conditions (environment) drive change; aims for objectivity; values hypotheses testability.
Post-processual archaeology (post-processual): emphasizes human agency, symbolism, ideational factors; change driven by ideas, beliefs, interactions; argues archaeology cannot be fully objective and is shaped by researchers’ own biases; emphasizes interpretation and context; advocates for the political nature of research.
Processual plus (processual +): a middle ground acknowledging both environmental drivers and symbolic/ideational aspects; recognizes political and historical contexts.
Paradigms and bias:
Paradigms bias the questions asked, the methods used, and the interpretation of results.
Archaeology today often sits in a spectrum between extremes, with many researchers adopting a combined approach.
The importance of context:
The entire scientific-method flow in archaeology sits within a blue box labeled social, cultural, and political context; context influences how questions are framed and how results are interpreted.
The paradigm and the researcher’s cultural context interact (shown by a dashed line) in shaping the research process.
A concrete archaeological chain: agriculture and carrying capacity example
High level theory (paradigm-dependent): why does agriculture occur?
Statement used in the chart: agriculture occurs when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment: P > K where = population size and = carrying capacity.
Hypothesis: if population grows and exceeds carrying capacity, then agriculture emerges as a response to resource pressure.
Middle level theory (bridging hypotheses): what material remains should look like if growing population leads to agriculture?
Proposed indicators: increase in domestic housing size as population grows; decrease in easy-to-harvest plant seeds as resources become depleted; use of extra labor or technology to extract harder-to-get foods.
Tools and methods to connect behavior to material remains:
Ethnoarchaeology: study living groups to infer how behavior translates to artifacts.
Experimental archaeology: simulate behaviors to see resulting material traces.
Antiphonomy: study how natural processes affect archaeological remains.
Testing the hypothesis (field/lab work):
Collect data via survey or excavation; analyze material remains such as houses and seeds.
Example: excavate houses dating to different times and analyze changes in house size; examine seeds from trash middens for size changes over time.
If houses increase in size over time and seeds decrease in size over time, this supports increased population and resource pressure, consistent with agriculture emerging due to carrying capacity pressures.
Confirmation and interpretation:
If data show increased house size and decreased seed size over time, this supports the hypothesis that agriculture occurred because population exceeded carrying capacity.
The interpretation of results is influenced by the paradigm (e.g., an emphasis on demography as driver rather than religious or social factors).
The end-of-cycle step: publish results and share with the public; the process can start anew with new questions or new data.
Note: the chart explicitly links high, middle, and low level theory to the empirical steps of data collection and interpretation, showing how theoretical aims drive data collection and how data drive interpretation within a broader paradigm.
Paradigms in depth: processual, post-processual, and processual-plus
Processual archaeology (often called the science-based, adaptive view):
Explains social, economic, and cultural change primarily as adaptation to external conditions (environment, resources).
Culture is viewed as a system, with behavior as adaptive to survival needs.
Emphasizes objectivity and scientific testing; external conditions have causal priority over ideational factors.
Example: a change in projectile point style is interpreted as an adaptation to changes in prey availability or hunting strategies driven by environmental change.
Post-processual archaeology (humanistic, ideational view):
Change arises largely from human ideas, beliefs, and interactions within a symbolic system; stress on individual agency.
Argues archaeology cannot be truly objective; research is inevitably influenced by the researcher’s biases and the contemporary world.
Emphasizes the symbolic and social meanings of artifacts; emphasizes the role of power, identity, and politics in interpretation.
Processual plus (integrative approach):
Acknowledges both adaptation and symbolism; recognizes that historical change arises from the combined actions of many individuals and their ideas within political and social contexts.
Why paradigms matter:
They shape questions, methods, interpretation, and what counts as evidence.
Understanding paradigms helps anticipate potential biases and fosters a more nuanced interpretation of archaeological data.
Putting it together: the method within context
The entire workflow is framed within the broader social, cultural, and political context; context matters for what questions are asked and how results are communicated.
The flow is framed by a paradigm, but the line is dashed to reflect ongoing interaction between the paradigm and the archaeologist’s cultural context.
Example workflow anchored in agriculture case:
Start with a high level question about why agriculture arises.
Translate into a testable hypothesis using middle level theory and a bridging of observations to behavior.
Collect data through fieldwork and artifact analysis (low level theory).
Interpret data within a chosen paradigm, recognizing possible alternative explanations.
Publish and disseminate results; consider retesting or new questions.
Practicalities: time, specialization, and research strategy
Timeframes depend on the method:
Using pre-published or existing data can be relatively quick; new experiments or fieldwork take longer.
If the study relies on observations alone, timelines are shorter than controlled experiments.
Specialization within archaeology:
Some researchers focus on middle level theory development, some on fieldwork or lab analysis, and some on synthesizing data from multiple sources (high level theory).
Real-world relevance and ethics:
Paradigms and methods influence how we present findings to the public and how we consider the societal implications of research.
Acknowledging biases and context is essential for responsible scholarship and for communicating with diverse audiences.
Quick exam-ready takeaways
Archaeology uses the scientific method: problem, hypothesis, data, testing, analysis, conclusion; but science cannot prove, only well-supported explanations.
The three levels of theory connect data to explanations: low level (observation/identification), middle level (behavioral/natural-process links), high level (broad, explanatory questions about humanity).
Paradigms (processual vs post-processual) guide how archaeology explains change and how objective or subjective researchers consider their work; processual plus attempts to integrate both aspects.
Context matters: culture, society, and politics influence questions, methods, interpretation, and dissemination of results.
Practical example: Emeryville Shell Mound demonstrates how a well-structured test (bird remains) supports year-round occupation, illustrating the scientific method in archaeology.
The chart’s workflow ties high, middle, and low level theory to data collection, with the blue box emphasizing context; the dashed line signals ongoing interaction between paradigm and cultural context.
Methodological tools linked to middle level theory include ethnoarchaeology, experimental archaeology, and antiphonomy; these help bridge observed material remains to human behavior and natural processes.
Key numbers and data points:
Emeryville Shell Mound height ≈ ; footprint ≈ across.
Excavations in 1902, 1920s, and 1999.
The test for seasonality used bird remains: waterfowl (winter) and juvenile cormorants (summer).
Core caveat: even well-supported conclusions should be open to revision with new data or methods; science is iterative.