La Estructura De La Teoria Arqueologica

The Structure of Archaeological Theory Author(s): Michael B. Schiffer Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 53, No. 3, (Jul., 1988), pp. 461-485 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/281212 Accessed: 24/04/2008 02:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contactinformation may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable the scholarly community to preserve their workand the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org

THE STRUCTURE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL THEORY
Michael B. Schiffer
Contradictory programmaticstatementshave increaseduncertaintyabout the nature and roles of theory in thatdiversekindsof theorythatarchaeologists However, archaeology. aframeworkcan be constructed ties together use-and often create. Three overarching realms of theory can be recognized,each consistingof one or more functionallydefineddomains:social theory,reconstruction theory(the domains are material-culture dynamics and culturaland noncultural formationprocessesof the archaeologicalrecord),and methodologicaltheory(the domains are recovery,analysis, and inference). Withineach domain are high-level, mid-level, and low-level theories.Previousinvestigators the oftenhaveoverlooked richnessand complexityof archaeological theory,sometimes generalizingfroma verynarrow perspective. Perhaps stimulated by Taylor's (1948) strident critique and building on the sporadic efforts of earlier decades (e.g., Stewardand Setzler 1938; Rouse 1939; Krieger 1944), American archaeologists began consistently in the 1950s to recognize, make explicit, and contribute to the growth of various bodies of theory (e.g., Chang 1958; Ehrich 1950; Rouse 1955; South 1955; Spaulding 1960; Wauchope 1955; Willey and Phillips 1958). This heightened concern with theory, which had parallels abroad (e.g., Childe 1951, 1956; Clark1952), became a preoccupation with the "new" archaeology of the 1960s and 1970s. By 1973 David Clarke could note the passing of the discipline's innocence, for it was becoming clear that everything archaeologists do is infused by theory (much of it, regrettably, still implicit). Interest in theory continues to this day but, along with concrete contributions, the recent literature is marked byprogrammatic statements, some seeking to establish new theorybased variants of archaeology (e.g., Hodder 1982a). These apparently contradictory pronouncements have raised doubts about the nature and roles of theory in archaeology. Indeed, if the discipline were to be assessed on the basis of these statements, the inescapable conclusion would be that its theoretical structure is in disarray (cf. Dunnell1986a). In order to promote integration, the present paper fashions a framework for tying together the diverse kinds of theory that archaeologists useand often create. A paper that grapples with the overall structure of theory inevitably must take stands on certain contentious issues in the philosophy of archaeology (cf. Salmon 1982). It is doubtful that such issues can ever be resolved to...