Middle-Range Theory in Archaeology: A Critical Review of Origins and Applications

Abstract

The concept of middle-range theory, arising over three decades ago in sociology, is reviewed. The concept was proposed as an approach to theorizing, urging consolidation of high-order theories with low-order empirical studies. The critical elements in such hierarchies are theories of a middle-range of abstraction. However, most current conceptions of “middle-range theory” in archaeology are far more narrowly conceived. Derived primarily from Binford's work, they continue the New Archaeology's attempt to develop a materialist epistemology for archaeology. In this view, principles of site formation processes are nearly synonymous with “middle-range theory.” The dangers to theory-building of this approach are outlined. Examples of middle-range theory that expand our capacity for explanation of cultural behavior are presented.

Empirical Urban Theory for Archaeologists

“…This is quite different from the domain of theory that lies between the descriptive and high-level theory poles of the epistemological continuum. In spite of a few calls to limit the term middle-range theory to its sociological meaning, however (Raab and Goodyear 1984;Shott 1998), most archaeologists continue to associate the concept with Binford and formation processes of the archaeological record (e.g., Forslund 2004;Johnson 2010;Tschauner 1996;Varien and Ortman 2004). 2 Although later writers on Binfordian middle-range theory in archaeology sometimes mention Merton's ideas, in most cases they mischaracterize them.…”

Centros cerimoniais do planalto meridional

“…Para Raab & Goodyear (1984), é difícil ver diferenças significantes entre teorias de alcance médio e alcance inferior. Para os autores, quando se parar de perguntar que tipos de comportamentos podem ser associados a certos tipos de registros arqueológicos, e se começar a perguntar porque tais comportamentos acontecem, ou mudaram, ou se mantém estáveis, se estará realizando construção de teoria de forma significativa.…”

Integrating Archaeological Theory and Predictive Modeling: a Live Report from the Scene

“…These criteria are however not unproblematic, and we will try to illustrate this in the next section. Raab and Goodyear (1984) pointed out that most archaeological theories developed by New Archaeologists aimed at both generality and comprehensiveness. In other words, theory was on the one hand supposed to specify law-like assumptions with universal applicability ("covering laws") and at the same time predict phenomena in considerable detail.…”

“…We are however convinced that there are practical ways to better embed archaeological theory in predictive modeling. In elaborating this, we will mainly stick to the concept of middle range theory as defined by Binford (1981) and Raab and Goodyear (1984), including aspects of agency theory and cognitive archaeology, and acknowledging that multiple models may be necessary to arrive at sound predictions.…”

“…From a modeling perspective, middle range theory is an obvious candidate. Middle range theory was first developed in sociology in the 1950s (see Merton 1968;Raab and Goodyear 1984;although Kosso 1991 claims that the natural sciences were the main source of inspiration for it in archaeology). Merton (1968, p. 52, as cited in Raab andGoodyear 1984) stated the problem with theory like this:…”