11th October 2010, 08:29 PM
Wax Wrote:The little I do understand seems to suggest to me that Archaeology borrows models from other disciplines and applies them in ways they were not originally designed to do. Sometimes 20 years after the original model has gone out of use in the discipline it derived from.
Is there any theoretical approach that is purely archaeological in that it is derived from archaeological practice and observation?
Personally I think you have it about right there. Archaeology is a magpie. We borrow both tools and theories from anywhere we can if they seem useful and very little is designed specifically from and by archaeologists at the outset. You should see what surveyors think about how we abuse their kit! There are proven examples where the original points of imported theories have been missed by archaeologists.
I couldn't off the top of my head think of any theory in recent times that has it's ultimate origin in Archaeology, but I'm sure some of the people here would be able to list some. An old fashioned theory that was developed specifically for archaeology was Hawke's Ladder of Inference, which was later shown to be theoretically incorrect. I'm not sure how incorrect it was in reality though...
For example we have made great strides in understanding Bronze Age settlement in Ireland over the last 15 years, but very little progress in understanding Bronze Age religion. This would be in full accordance with the predictions made by the ladder, even if the theory doesn't stand up...I honestly couldn't tell you how that should be regarded.