Semiotix Course 2008, The epistemology of Pleistocene archaeology

In Lectures 1 and 2 we have briefl y touched upon the question of mistakes that have been made in archaeology historically—but we have considered these only in the context of specifi c issues at hand, such as the treatment of dissenters who were eventually shown to have been right. Here we will consider more carefully the generics of this problem: are there defi nable patterns in the epistemology of mistakes? Can we identify common or systematic factors, or do blunders in archaeology occur in random patterns? Since the purpose of this exercise is not to discredit individuals, but rather to strengthen through constructive critique, I will provide no names of those who became victims of their own overconfi dence (except where the actors have long passed away). I will also focus on case histories in which not a small group or an individual failed, but where most or even all of the discipline shared responsibility for the mistakes. The objective here is to examine what features or currents of archaeology are conducive to blunders of wide-ranging effects, and particularly to explore what specifi c aspects tend to facilitate the development and entrenchment of the trends and fads archaeology appears to be subject to.