Abstract

Contemporary archaeology is distinguished by methodological diversity. Historical examination suggests a cause. In the early 20th century an empirically testable means of assessing archaeological age was invented. This success saw archaeology narrow to chronological questions while affirming empirical testing as the criterion for correctness. The 1960s "new archaeology" broadened the range of questions; programmatic statements called for a scientific anthropological archaeology. During the ensuing 20 years many strategies, most of which are anthropological but none of which yield testable results, appeared. Inability to link non-chronological questions to empirical testing is responsible for the current methodological malaise. Three broad issues, causation, attribution of meaning, and laws, are problem areas worthy of philosophical consideration.