Kristin Kokkov (University of Tartu)
Archaeology is a domain that studies material remains of past events for the purpose of understanding social structures and cultural dynamics of past people. The events and people in question do not exist anymore and cannot be observed directly. Thus, there is a gap between the subjects that are studied and the information that is preserved from the past.
Archaeologists have tried to overcome this interpretational gap for many decades. In the 1970s, Lewis R. Binford introduced the method of middle-range theories as a tool of archaeological interpretation. In the 1980s, Ian Hodder laid the foundation for the post-processual movement that emphasised the importance of understanding past social context in interpreting past material culture.
In recent years, the question of the interpretational gap between material remains and past events has been analysed by Alison Wylie. To explain how archaeologists interpret material remains, she (2011: 371) suggests the model of evidential reasoning. Wylie (2011: 380) describes this model by saying that it involves three functional components: 1) empirical input; 2) theory that mediates the interpretation of empirical input as evidence; and 3) the claims on which this empirical input bears as evidence.
Taking this model as the basis for my study, I examine the archaeological research process it detail. I propose a specified version of the model and claim that the process of archaeological theory formation consists of at least three different stages of interpretation that proceed from the present material remains towards the past events:
1) the stage between material remains and archaeological record;
2) the stage between the description of the archaeological record and claims about the past;
3) the stage between claims about the past and general theory about the past historical-cultural context.
I argue that each of these stages has the structure of the model of evidential reasoning, but has its own specific function. In the first stage, the material remains are interpreted as archaeological record. In the second stage, archaeologists make claims about the past and explain why the archaeological record is the way it appears to us. In the third stage, archaeologists try to explain why these past events took place that left behind the archaeological record we can see today.
My aim is to explain in detail the structure of each interpretational stage, and show schematically how the archaeological research gradually proceeds from the material remains towards the understanding of the cultural past.
