We’re All Cultural Historians Now: Revolutions In Understanding Archaeological Theory And Scientific Dating

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Radiocarbon dating has had profound implications for archaeological understanding. These have been identified as various "revolutions", with the latest -Bayesian chronological statistical analyses of large datasets -hailed as a "revolution in understanding". This paper argues that the full implications of radiocarbon data and interpretation on archaeological theory have yet to be recognized, and it suggests that responses in Britain to earlier revolutions in archaeological understanding offer salutary lessons for contemporary archaeological practice. This paper draws on the work of David Clarke and Colin Renfrew to emphasize the importance of critical considerations of the relationships between archaeological theory and scientific method, and to emphasize that seemingly neutral aspects of archaeological thought are highly laden interpretatively, having significant implications for the kinds of archaeology that we write.

Rethinking “Village” at Mogollon Village (LA 11568): Formal Chronological Modeling of a Persistent Place

“…This article demonstrates how applying a Bayesian framework to radiocarbon dates results in more precise occupational histories of sites and structures. Furthermore, it highlights how Bayesian modeling can interrogate essentializing terms such as “village.” Griffiths (2017) suggests that for Bayesian analysis to truly be revolutionary, it should allow for the creation of new narratives and not just reify our existing models. In this case, the Mogollon Village analysis raises questions regarding current understandings of the Pithouse period.…”

Revealing a prehistoric past: Evidence for the deliberate construction of a historic narrative in the British Neolithic

“…This helps to produce exactly its goal – a tightly constrained chronological event sequence. However, as Griffiths (2017: 1353) has noted, our fixed period categories such as Mesolithic and Neolithic are also theoretical constructs, and therefore frame normative expressions of the past rather than unexpected ones. Hence Bayesian analyses tend to reinforce normative practices, within a normative structure.…”

“…(2014: 550) explicitly noting they chose a 200 year rolling average to ‘discourage the reader from over-interpreting smaller scale features’. Yet despite their transparency with regard to their methods, dating models have never been atheoretical (Griffiths, 2017).…”

“…Therefore, they are not concerned with a generational-level of interpretation, rather in identifying longer term trends, with Timpson et al (2014: 550) explicitly noting they chose a 200 year rolling average to 'discourage the reader from over-interpreting smaller scale features'. Yet despite their transparency with regard to their methods, dating models have never been atheoretical (Griffiths, 2017).…”

David Clarke’s Analytical Archaeology at 50

“…As has been widely commented on over the intervening years, much of the latter focussed on the role of quantitative data and statistical methods. Of course, methodological, computational and statistical procedures within archaeological research have increased and diversified in a variety of ways in recent decades, as seen in everything from use of ancient genomic data through to large-scale, statistical radiocarbon dating programmes (Griffiths 2017). However, Clarke emphasized a need for terminological, logical and theoretical precision at least as much as methodological precision.…”