Titlebook: Metaarchaeology; Reflections by Archa Lester Embree Book 1992 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1992 English literature.Orient.acce

定點(diǎn)

Universalization in Archaeological Explanation render theories more testable and they lead research into unforeseen areas. Processual archaeologists regard the search for universals as crucial, but they have not always been clear as to why. Postprocessual archaeologists are convinced that the search for universals hinders rather than helps our

胡言亂語(yǔ)

過(guò)渡時(shí)期

thrombosis

Philosophical Models for Postprocessual Archaeologyframing and justifying their own views on confirmation and explanation. In this essay I show that despite appearances to the contrary the positions of these two philosophers are similar to one another with respect to the issues that engage archaeologists. Moreover, just as new archaeologists have be

ineluctable

oblique

The Place of Archaeology in Science there was a past about which we can know. Archaeologists should not ask whether there truly was a past or whether reality is entirely a social construction because answers to these metaphysical questions make no practical or empirical difference. As scientists, archaeologists do not seek certain, p

綠州

On “Heavily Decomposing Red Herrings”: Scientific Method in Archaeology and the Ladening of Evidencehave generated such sharply polarized positions, that they obscure much common ground. Despite strong rhetorical opposition, in practice, all employ a range of strategies for building and assessing the empirical credibility of their claims that reveals a common commitment to some form of mitigated o

Disk199

Book 1992d. Reading Lester Embree‘s .Metaarchaeology.provides the best possible introduction to the field, since in itseveral leading archaeologists show how accessible and interesting thecurrent archeological literature is, and currently active philosophersof archaeology reveal something of the current stat

土坯

饒舌的人

Philosophical Models for Postprocessual Archaeologyen criticized for failing to understand Hempel’s models, so can postprocessualists be faulted for their interpretation of Collingwood. The essay concludes with remarks on the role of philosophical analyses of archaeology with respect to its practice.