| Abstract: |
The contributors are all working with theory in the sense of pragmatically solving particular archaeological problems: the volume aims to refine from their accounts the spheres in which theory 'works'. F Pryor (5-9), on 'Pragmatic and didactic: some thoughts on the changing structure of British archaeology', sees a danger in academic archaeology and practical archaeology drifting apart, though sandwich courses or postgraduate training would help reunite them. 'Pragmatism: a working philosophy' is put forward by C F Gaffney (11-16), arguing the worth of searching for theory that has some real implications in the archaeological record. R M Yorston (17-26), in 'Theory and method: some observations from a scientist', questions the appropriateness of 'the scientific method' in archaeology; he introduces some concepts from 'hard' science (eg inductivism, falsificationism, Kuhn's paradigms, Feyerabend's anarchistic theory of knowledge) and concludes that archaeology is still at the stage of a pre-science. Moving to the application of theory, P Wardle (27-34) discusses 'Peripatetic potters, pots or provision - the interpretation of pottery fabric data', finding (with special reference to LBA ceramics from E Yorks) that some assumptions often made about prehistoric potters are not always valid, and that ceramic production and exchange is very complex and not subject to general models. 'The quantification of vessel fragments' by W Fletcher & M P Heyworth (35-46) reports tests on various methods of quantification, at least two of which need to be applied to a given assemblage. J Rackham (47-69) considers 'Practicality and realism in archaeozoological analysis and interpretation', finding that theories of agricultural economics are running far ahead of the data and our means of assessing them; even so, teamwork would extract far more of the data's potential. C P Heron & C F Gaffney (71-81), in 'Archaeogeophysics and the site: ohm sweet ohm?' demonstrate that geophysical prospection can do more than locate habitation structures for excavation. In 'Romano-British villas: practical lessons for tactical fieldwork', E Scott & V L Gaffney (83-8) find the presence of the historical record a positive hindrance to RB studies, especially as the quality of field survey data rises. Enquiring 'Can we have a pragmatic integrated archaeology?', R Hingley (89-106) develops a range of explanatory models for Iron Age-RB settlement in the Upper Thames area, attempting to integrate theory and data. R Yorston with C F Gaffney & V L Gaffney (107-13) sets out 'A manifesto for pragmatic archaeology' to tackle the disillusionment of archaeology's mid-life crisis. Comment on the ten papers is provided by R Bradley (115-19) in 'Against objectivity: an overview'. |
