Rational choice in field archaeology

Abstract

In the present article I attempt to apply advances in the study of instrumental and epistemic rationality to field archaeology in order to gain insights into the ways archaeologists reason. The cognitive processes, particularly processes of decision making, that enable archaeologists to conduct the excavation in the trench have not been adequately studied so far. I take my cues from two different bodies of theory. I first inquire into the potential that rational choice theory (RCT) may have in modeling archaeological behaviour, and I define subjective expected utility, which archaeologists attempt to maximize, in terms of knowledge acquisition and social gain. Following Elster’s criticism of RCT, I conclude that RCT’s standards for rational action do not correspond with those ostensibly used in field archaeology, but that instrumental rationality has a prominent role in the “archaeological experiment”. I further explore if models proposed as reaction to RCT may account for archaeological decision making. I focus on fast and frugal heuristics, and search for archaeological illustrations for some of the cognitive biases that are better documented in psychological literature. I document confirmation and congruence biases, the endowment effect, observer-expectancy bias, illusory correlation, clustering illusion, sunk cost bias, and anchoring, among others and I propose that some of these biases are used as cognitive tools by archaeologists at work and retain epistemic value. However, I find formal logic to be secondary in the development of archaeological reasoning, with default logic and defeasible logic being used instead. I emphasize scientific knowledge as an actively negotiated social product of human inquiry, and conclude that to describe rationality in field archaeology a bounded rationality model is the most promising avenue of investigation.

Authors and Affiliations

Cătălin Pavel

Keywords

Related Articles

The sacrificial emplotment of national identity. Pádraic Pearse and the 1916 Easter uprising

A sense of national identification remains amorphous and inert unless it is cognitively structured and motivationally oriented. Perhaps the most consequential way of structuring and orienting nationalism is through emp...

Issue Number 11-12 of the Journal “Transilvania”, Sibiu, 2013

My review presents a special double number of the journal “Transilvania”, focused on alternative ways of presenting the Sociological School of Bucharest. The coordinator on this issue was professor Zoltán Rostás. This...

Commemoration in conflict Comparing the generation of solidarity at the 1916 Easter Rising Commemorations in Belfast Northern Ireland and the 1948 ‘Nakba’ Commemorations in Ramallah, Palestine

This article takes as its focus the generation of solidarity through the commemoration of key and defining moments in modern Irish and Palestinian history, namely; the 1916 Easter Rising and the 1948 Palestinian Nakba....

The clones: a new phenomenon in the literary environment

The article is an introduction to a rather recent phenomenon present in the Romanian literary environment: “the clones”. They are somehow linked to pseudonyms and Pessoa’s heteronyms but at the same time they bring som...

Being a homeopath. Learning and practice in a homeopathic community

In this In this paper I look at the Romanian homeopathic practice through the conceptual lens of the communities of practice. Through interviews with homeopathic practitioners, I investigate the ways they accumulate an...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP40950
  • DOI -
  • Views 238
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Cătălin Pavel (2011). Rational choice in field archaeology. Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology, 2(2), -. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-40950