Levels of Archaeological Theory

I made this point in class quickly, so I think it bears repeating.  In archaeology, one can conceive of at least three levels of archaeological theory (and these three levels weave into the three goals of archaeology we've talked about many times--culture history, reconstructing activities, explaining social change).

Put as simply as I can, theory refers to an interrelated set of models (which are themselves composed of hypotheses) that together form a coherent, relatively concise explanation for some phenomenon.  It is not a "hunch" or a "guess."

The first level of theory in archaeology focuses on establishing culture history, or arranging material culture in time and space. This is relatively "basic" theory in that it often relies on fairly straightforward principles like the law of association and superposition.

The second level of theory is sometimes called middle-range theory. I didn't use this term in class, but you should already be familiar with the concept.  Middle-range theory includes all those models and hypotheses used to reconstruct ancient human activities from the static remains of the archaeological record.  I've expanded further on the idea of middle range theory here...though I don't use the term "middle range."

The third (or, top?) level of theory is what we've recently been talking about in our discussion for models of the origins of the Neolithic. This sort of theory can be thought of as anthropological or sociological theory.  Theories that attempt to provide a guiding, consistent explanation for human behavior.  Different theoretical approaches, however, consider different variables as more important than others.  In this sense then, this level of archaeology theory is no different than what is used in sociology or cultural anthropology. 

Processual archaeology offers explanations based on variables like population density and environmental change.  Processualists see human society and culture as ultimately adaptive in nature.  Subsequently, processualists emphasize objective data, such as those that can indicate human population or subsistence.

Postprocessual archaeology, on the other hand, believe that only seeing human society as adaptive misses a major point about the human experience. They wold claim that humans are social and symbolic creatures, and so accordingly live in worlds differently mediated by meaning and are in dynamic social relationships with other humans.  For postprocessualism, to understand ancient humans, we need to take such considerations into account.  However, getting at symbols and social dynamics can be more difficult than getting at subsistence.  Because of this, postprocessualists are often less reliant on strictly objective data and rely on more holistic interpretations that look at entire assemblages of artifacts, trying to piece together an ancient big picture that may be very foreign to modern eyes (wow, that's a confusing sentence).

Despite this being the longest post on this blog to date, I've simplified this discussion tremendously.  However, theory is a critical aspect of any scientific endeavor and so, it's important to have some understanding of it to really get a handle on any scientific field. Also, it's just cool stuff to think about.  Thinking back to what got me hooked on anthropology, I'm pretty sure theoretical discussions are to blame.