Social science and archaeological enquiry

Abstract

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’.

Combining collagen extraction with mineral Zn isotope analyses from a single sample for robust palaeoecological investigations

“…Apart from the obvious benefits for conservation of archaeological specimens undergoing sampling, such a method of salvaging samples and products of their analysis increases the value of existing archaeological collections and, at the same time, lowers the quantity of new archaeological material necessary to excavate. Equally important, such methods could prove invaluable for archaeological sciences to operate as a scientific practice (Kosso 2011;Smith 2017) because they supplement and add to insights gained by other analyses (in this case, traditional dietary δ 13 C and δ 15 N analyses), which can then be used for (in)validation and falsification-control of results. For these reasons, we think that such an approach and the development of such methods should warrant a particular research emphasis in archaeological sciences in general.…”

A New Kind of Relevance for Archaeology

“…This approach has yielded many insights, but it seems limited from the perspective of practical relevance in that the approach generally does not lead to predictions that can be evaluated empirically. Instead, in most cases the process involves mapping or indexing a conceptual framework onto archaeological information from a given context (Smith, 2015(Smith, , 2017. Most of the time, this approach helps one interpret the archaeological evidence better, but it doesn't lead to empirical predictions such that one can know if or how a particular idea is wrong.…”

“…One was the appeal to philosophers of science as opposed to actual practice. This was unfortunate because logical positivism is an abstraction that never characterized actual practice in the natural sciences (Smith, 2017). To give just one example, contrary to the formal, binary logic of logical positivism ("In C, if A, then B") (Watson et al, 1971, p. 6-7), most scientific knowledge claims are actually statistical: what the average outcome should be, the likelihood of a certain level of effect, and so forth.…”

Finding Archaeology in 2017: What Is Archaeology and Why Are We Doing It? Why Should We Be Doing It?

“…Earley‐Spadoni (, 96) asks us to consider: “Are archaeologists scientists who engage in model testing to develop universalizing theories or are they humanists who employ scientific methodologies like GIS to answer historically specific and contingent questions?” For her, the humanistic questions of many archaeological projects attest to the latter and call for alliances with the digital‐humanities efforts of other disciplines. Michael Smith (), in an essay in Antiquity , takes up the similar but seemingly less frequently asked question: Should archaeology be considered a social science? For Smith, a social science model for archaeology would foster rigorous and comparative analyses, facilitate integration with other social science fields, and result in research findings that have enhanced relevance to society and greater visibility in the eyes of policymakers.…”