Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:43:51.764Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Central Place Theory and the Reciprocity Between Theory and Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Peter Kosso  and
Cynthia Kosso
Peter Kosso
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University
Cynthia Kosso
Affiliation:
Department of History Northern Arizona University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Information about the prehistoric past is available only in the material remains. To be meaningful, these remains must be interpreted under the influence of a theory of some general or specific aspect of the past. For this reason, prehistoric archaeology clearly shows the reciprocity between theory and evidence and the tension between having to impose information on the evidence in order to discover information in the evidence. We use a specific case in the archaeology of Minoan Crete, a case that uses Central Place Theory as a guide to understanding the evidence, to demonstrate a coherence model of scientific knowledge.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , December 1995 , pp. 581 - 598
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Send reprint requests to P. Kosso, Department of Philosophy, or C. Kosso, Department of History, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011.

References

Binford, L. (1977), “General Introduction”, in Binford, L. (ed.), For Theory Building in Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J. (1984), “Iron Age Europe in the Context of Social Evolution from the Bronze Age Through to Historic Times”, in Bintliff, J. (ed.), European Social Evolution. Bradford: University of Bradford.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J. and Snodgrass, A. (1985), “The Cambridge/Bradford Boeotia Expedition: the First Four Years”, Journal of Field Archaeology 12: 123–162.Google Scholar
Bogen, J. and Woodward, J. (1988), “Saving the Phenomena”, Philosophical Review 97: 303–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, J. (1986), “Polities and Palaces: Some Problems in Minoan State Formation,” in Renfrew, C. and Cherry, J. (eds.), Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Collingwood, R. G. (1939), An Autobiography. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1983), Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. (eds.). (1981), Sanctuaries and Cult Places in the Aegean Bronze Age. Stockholm: Paul Aströms Förlag.Google Scholar
Halstead, P. (1981), “From Determinism to Uncertainty: Social Storage and the Rise of the Minoan Palace”, in Sheridan, A. and Baily, G. (eds.), Economic Archaeology. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 96, pp. 187–213.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. (ed.). (1978), The Spatial Organization of Culture. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. (ed.). (1991), Reading the Past, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Second Edition)Google Scholar
Johnson, G. (1972), “A Test of the Utility of Central Place Theory in Archaeology”, in Ucko, P., Tringham, R., Dimbleby, G. (eds.), Man Settlement and Urbanism. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Johnson, G (1975), “Locational Analysis and the Investigation of Uruk Local Exchange Systems”, in Sabloff, J. and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. (eds.), Ancient Civilization and Trade. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Kelley, J. and Hanen, M. (1988), Archaeology and the Methodology of Science. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Kosso, P. (1992), Reading the Book of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peatfield, A. (1983), “The Topography of Minoan Peak Sanctuaries”, Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 78: 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peatfield, A. (1987), “Palace and Peak: the Political and Religious Relationship between Palaces and Peak Sanctuaries”, in Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. (eds.), The Functions of Minoan Palaces. Stockholm: Paul Aströms Förlag, pp. 89–93.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. (1984), Approaches to Social Archaeology. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. (1986), “Introduction: Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change”, in Renfrew, C. and Cherry, J. (eds.), Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. (1981), “Some Issues in the Philosophy of Archaeology”, American Antiquity 46: 899–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, M. (1988), “The Structure of Archaeological Theory”, American Antiquity 53: 461–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. (1987), Social Theory and Archaeology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1982), “The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy”, Philosophy of Science 49: 485–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, M. A. (1985) “Between Philosophy and Archaeology”, American Antiquity 50: 478–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, M. A. (1988), “‘Simple’ Analogy and the Role of Relevance Assumptions: Implications of Archaeological Practice”, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2: 134–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, M. A. (1993), “A Proliferation of New Archaeologies: ‘Beyond Objectivism and Relativism,‘ ” in Yoffee, N. and Sherratt, A. (eds.), Archaeological Theory: Who sets the Agenda?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar