Processual archaeologists seek to explain variability in the static archaeological record we observe in the present as a necessary first step toward learning how to learn about the operation of cultural dynamics in the past. The approach is a diverse and productive one that focuses on developing learning strategies. Researchers pursuing processual archaeology have already discovered a great deal about the archaeological record and about past dynamics, and there is a huge potential for building on the foundation laid thus far. The contributors to this volume provide clearly written research articles that are easily accessible to upper-level undergraduates and professional archaeologists. Although the papers do not focus on a single region, time period, or domain of observation (e.g. settlement patterns or lithics or site structure), they are integrated by shared goals for archaeology. This book clearly demonstrates that processual archaeology, far from having been replaced by post-processual archaeology, is becoming more and more powerful as our analytic sophistication and knowledge of the archaeological record grow.

This volume assesses the real achievements of archaeology in increasing an understanding of the past. Without rejecting the insights either of traditional or more recent approaches, it considers the issues raised in current claims and controversies about what is appropriate theory for archaeology. The first section looks at the process of theory building and at the sources of the ideas employed. The following studies examine questions such as the interplay between expectation and evidence in ideas of human origins, social role and material practice in the formation of the archaeological record, and how the rise of states should be conceptualised; further papers cover issues of ethnoarchaeology, visual symbols, and conflicting claims to ownership of the past. The conclusion is that archaeologists need to be equally wary of naive positivism in the guise of scientific procedure, and of speculation about the unrecorded intentions of prehistoric actors.

Can There Be a Philosophy of Archaeology? provides a historical and philosophical analysis of the rise and fall of the philosophical movement know as logical positivism, focusing on the effect of that movement on the budding science of archaeology. Significant problems resulted from the grafting of logical positivism onto what became known as processual, or new archaeology, and as a result of this failure, archaeologists distanced themselves from philosophers of science, believing that archaeology would be best served by a return to the dirt. By means of a thorough analysis of the real reasons for failures of logical empiricism and the new archaeology, as well as a series of archaeological case studies, Krieger shows the need for the resumption of dialogue and collaboration between the two groups. In an age where philosophers of science are just beginning to look beyond the standard examples of scientific practice, this book demonstrates that archaeological science can hold its own with other sciences and will be of interest to archaeologists and philosophers of science alike.

This Reader in Archaeological Theory presents sixteen articles of key theoretical significance, in a format which makes this notoriously complex area easier for students to understand. This volume: * provides an intellectual history of different approaches to archaeology which contextualizes the complex traditions of cognitive archaeology and postprocessualism on which it focuses * organizes theories of archaeology, the meanings of things, the prehistoric mind and cognition, gender, ideology and social theory and archaeology's relationship to today's society and politics * includes lucid section introductions to each section which provide context, explain why the papers are so significant and summarize their key points * emphasizes research from the 'New World', making archaeological theory especially relevant and accessible to students in North America

This book reconsiders how we can understand archaeology on a grand scale by abandoning the claims that material remains stand for the people and institutions that produced them, or that genetic change somehow caused cultural change. Our challenge is to understand the worlds that made great projects like the building of Stonehenge or Mycenae possible. The radiocarbon revolution made the old view that the architecture of Mycenae influenced the building of Stonehenge untenable. But the recent use of 'big data' and of genetic histories have led archaeology back to a worldview where 'big problems' are assumed to require 'big solutions'. Making an animated plea for bottom-up rather than top-down solutions, the authors consider how life was made possible by living in the local and materially distinct worlds of the period. By considering how people once built connections between each other through their production and use of things, their movement between and occupancy of places, and their treatment of the dead, we learn about the kinds of identities that people constructed for themselves. Stonehenge did not require an architect from Mycenae for it to be built, but the builders of Stonehenge and Mycenae would have shared a mutual recognition of the kinds of humans that they were, and the kinds of practices these monuments were once host to.

Table of contents