Laws, Systems, and Research Designs

A Discussion of Explanation in Archaeology

Bibliographic Data

ID7606143
AuthorsH David Tuggle (University of Hawaii System), Alex H Townsend (University of Hawaii System), Thomas J Riley (0000-0002-4226-6304, University of Hawaii System)
Year1972
Volume37
Issue1
Pages3-12
Publication date1972-01-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueAmerican Antiquity (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0002-7316 • E-ISSN: 2325-5064
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/278882
OpenAlexW2331215694
LanguageEN
Citations received23
References cited37

Archaeology must come to grips with the basic philosophical problems of science. With this premise in mind, we welcome the recent article on explanation by Fritz and Plog (1970) and offer a review and critique of it with the following points: (1) The D-N model of explanation is not the exclusive explanatory system in science and is in fact subject to extensive discussion and criticism in several areas of science; (2) archaeologists have not employed laws commonly in the past but rather deductive reasoning based on assumed premises; (3) the use of laws in explanation may reduce archaeology to a science of historical exemplification; (4) the research design presented by Fritz and Plog may be modified to include concern for hypothesis formulation, variable identification in the archaeological context, and the interplay of hypotheses and data throughout excavation and analysis; (5) the Meehan system paradigm explanatory model is presented as an alternative to the D-N model; (6) what archaeologists try to explain is relevant to the nature of the explanation

Archaeology · Context (archaeology) · Criticism · Epistemology · Excavation · Exemplification · Identification (biology) · Premise · Sociology · Subject (documents) · Archaeology and ancient environmental studies · Computer Science · Ecology · History · Image Processing and 3D Reconstruction · Law · Philosophy · Philosophy and History of Science

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub