Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T09:13:11.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social science and archaeological enquiry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2017

Michael E. Smith Open the ORCID record for Michael E. Smith [Opens in a new window]
Michael E. Smith*
Affiliation:
School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, 900 Cady Mall, Tempe AZ 85287, USA (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Is archaeology a social science? Most archaeologists would probably agree that the goal of our discipline is to learn about the people, societies and cultures of the past. Thus there should be little objection to labelling archaeology a ‘social’ field of study. We study both people and society, but what about the ‘science’ part? This label is more controversial. Many archaeologists reject the notion that archaeology is, can be or should be a science. Others assume that archaeology is indeed a science and get on with their work, not worrying much about epistemology or definitions of science. Still others pursue decidedly non-scientific goals yet borrow scientific techniques from other disciplines and call it ‘archaeological science’.

Type
Debate
Information
Antiquity , Volume 91 , Issue 356 , April 2017 , pp. 520 - 528
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2017 

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

6, P. & C. Bellamy. 2012. Principles of methodology: research design in social science. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
Abend, G. 2008. The meaning of ‘theory’. Sociological Theory 26: 173–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2008.00324.x Google Scholar
Barton, C.M., Ullah, I.I.T., Bergin, S.M., Mitasova, H. & Sarjoughian, H.. 2012. Looking for the future in the past: long-term change in sociocological systems. Ecological Modelling 241: 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.02.010 Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1968. Some comments on historical versus processual archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24: 267–75. https://doi.org/10.1086/soutjanth.24.3.3629348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, P. 2012. From studious irrelevancy to consilient knowledge: modes of scholarship and cultural anthropology, in Slingerland, E. & Collard, M. (ed.) Creating consilience: reconciling science and the humanities: 113–29. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bunge, M. 1997. Mechanism and explanation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 27: 410–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
– 1999. Social science under debate: a philosophical perspective. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
– 2004. How does it work?: The search for explanatory mechanisms. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34: 182–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393103262550 Google Scholar
Burawoy, M. 2005. For public sociology. American Sociological Review 70: 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, J. 2007. Explaining social behavior: more nuts and bolts for the social sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, J. 2005. Causation: a unified framework for the social sciences. Journal of Theoretical Politics 17: 163–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951629805050859 Google Scholar
– 2012. Social science methodology: a unified framework. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gillespie, S.D. 2013. Early monumentality in North America: another comparative perspective for Africa. Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 48: 301–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2013.794591 Google Scholar
Haber, S. 1999. Anything goes: Mexico's ‘new’ cultural history. Hispanic American Historical Review 79: 309–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedström, P. & Ylikoski, P.. 2010. Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 36: 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102632 Google Scholar
Hempel, C. 1965. Aspects of scientific explanation. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 2012. Introduction: contemporary theoretical debate in archaeology, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Archaeological theory today: 1–14. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. & Hutson, S.R.. 2003. Reading the past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814211 Google Scholar
Isendahl, C. & Smith, M.E.. 2013. Sustainable agrarian urbanism: the low-density cities of the Mayas and Aztecs. Cities 31: 132–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.07.012 Google Scholar
Jarvie, I. & Zamora-Bomilla, J. (ed.). 2011. Sage handbook of the philosophy of the social sciences. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. 2010. Archaeological theory: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jones, A. 2002. Archaeological theory and scientific practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kagan, J. 2009. The three cultures: natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities in the 21st century. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosso, P. 2009. The large-scale structure of scientific method. Science and Education 18: 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-008-9143-9 Google Scholar
Little, D. 1998. Microfoundations, method, and causation: on the philosophy of the social sciences. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction.Google Scholar
– 2011. Causal mechanisms in the social realm, in Illari, P.M., Russo, F. & Williamson, J. (ed.) Causality in the sciences: 273–95. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martinón-Torres, M. & Killick, D.. 2013. Archaeological theories and archaeological sciences, in Gardner, A., Lake, M. & Sommer, U. (ed.) Oxford handbook of archaeological theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mjøset, L. 2001. Theory: conceptions in the social sciences, in Smelser, N.J. & Baltes, P.B. (ed.) International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences: 15641–47. New York: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/00702-6 Google Scholar
Morgan, C.G. 1973. Archaeology and explanation. World Archaeology 4: 259–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1973.9979538 Google Scholar
Ortman, S.G., Davis, K.E., Lobo, J., Smith, M.E., Bettencourt, L.M.A. & Trumbo, A.. 2016. Settlement scaling and economic change in the central Andes. Journal of Archaeological Science 73: 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.07.012 Google Scholar
Preucel, R.W. & Meskell, L. (ed.). 2004. Blackwell companion to social archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ragin, C.C. & Amoroso, L.M.. 2011. Constructing social research: the unity and diversity of method. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage.Google Scholar
Sabloff, J.A. 2008. Archaeology matters: action archaeology in the modern world. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast.Google Scholar
Sabloff, J.A., Beale, T.W. & Kurland, A.M. Jr. 1973. Supplement: recent developments in archaeology. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 408: 103–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271627340800110 Google Scholar
Scheidel, W. (ed.). 2014. State power in ancient China and Rome. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, M.E. 1992. Braudel's temporal rhythms and chronology theory in archaeology, in Knapp, A.B. (ed.) Annales, archaeology, and ethnohistory: 23–34. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
– 2011. Empirical urban theory for archaeologists. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 18: 167–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-010-9097-5 Google Scholar
– (ed.). 2012a. The comparative archaeology of complex societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
– 2012b. The role of ancient cities in research on contemporary urbanization. UGEC Viewpoints (Urbanization and Global Environmental Change) 8: 15–19.Google Scholar
– 2015. How can archaeologists make better arguments? The SAA Archaeological Record 15: 18–23.Google Scholar
Smith, M.E., Feinman, G.M., Drennan, R.D., Earle, T. & Morris, I.. 2012. Archaeology as a social science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 109: 7617–21. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1201714109 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, M.E., Dennehy, T., Kamp-Whittaker, A., Stanley, B., Stark, B.L. & York, A.. 2016. Conceptual approaches to service provision in cities through the ages. Urban Studies 53: 1574–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015577915 Google Scholar
Snow, C.P. 1959. The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sokal, A.D. 2006. Pseudoscience and postmodernism: antagonists or fellow travelers?, in Fagan, G.G. (ed.) Archaeological fantasies: how pseudoarchaeology mispresents the past and misleads the public: 286–361. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stanley, B.W., Dennehy, T., Smith, M.E., Stark, B.L., York, A., Cowgill, G.L., Novic, J. & Ek, G.. 2016. Service access in premodern cities: an exploratory comparison of spatial equity. Journal of Urban History 42: 121–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096144214566969 Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 2015. The future of archaeological theory. Antiquity 89: 1287–96. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2015.183 Google Scholar
Tilly, C. 2008. Explaining social processes. Boulder (CO): Paradigm.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. & Goodfield, J.. 1965. The discovery of time. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Trigger, B.G. 2003. Understanding early civilizations: a comparative study. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840630 Google Scholar
Turchin, P., Brennan, R., Currie, T., Feeney, K., Francois, P., Hoyer, D., Manning, J., Marciniak, A., Mullins, D., Palmisano, A., Peregrine, P., Turner, E.A.L. & Whitehouse, H.. 2015. Seshat: the global history databank. Cliodynamics: The Journal of Quantitative History and Cultural Evolution 6: 77–107.Google Scholar
Watson, P.J., LeBlanc, S.A. & Redman, C.L.. 1971. Explanation in archaeology: an explicitly scientific approach. New York: Colombia University Press.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 2000. Questions of evidence, legitimacy, and the (dis)unity of science. American Antiquity 65: 227–37. https://doi.org/10.2307/2694057 Google Scholar