Search

The article responds to the comments on the paper "What the New Archaeology Has Accomplished," by Richard A. Watson in this issue. It is clarified that common sense is not societally or culturally determined. He also concurs that archaeologists should be concerned with theory. The author also explains that there can be no separate theory of archaeology.

The article comments on the paper "What the New Archaeology Has Accomplished," by Richard A. Watson in this issue. The paper simply reaffirms concepts and characteristics already known from Watson's previous writings. However, while it claims to offer a retrospective evaluation of the American New Archaeology movement, it mostly focuses on the current and future shape of archaeological thinking.

The article comments on the paper "What the New Archaeology Has Accomplished," by Richard A. Watson in this issue. It is pointed out that Watson failed to live up to his promise of providing a survey of the concrete knowledge about prehistoric times accomplished since the 1960s by the followers of the New Archaeology. Nevertheless, the paper offers fresh knowledge but it should be pointed out that, contrary to Watson's joke, archaeology is not boring at all.

The article comments on the paper "What the New Archaeology Has Accomplished," by Richard A. Watson in this issue. Watson is commended for doing an excellent work on placing the arguments of modern skeptics in archaeology within their historical framework. Agreements or disagreements are presented for the various proposals of Watson that archaeologists might follow in the pursuit of their endeavors.

The article comments on the paper "What the New Archaeology Has Accomplished," by Richard A. Watson in this issue. The author points out that while he is in substantial agreement with Watson on the significance of scientific archaeology, he differs strongly with him on what comprises science. A more encompassing definition that includes both processual and postprocessual programs is needed.

The article comments on the paper "What the New Archaeology Has Accomplished," by Richard A. Watson in this issue. The author questions Watson's view that archaeologists suggest and test hypotheses established on the basis of common sense and scientific knowledge obtained from other sciences. It is also pointed out that Watson considers only hypotheses that can be tested, without looking into their various levels and backgrounds.

The article comments on the paper "What the New Archaeology Has Accomplished," by Richard A. Watson in this issue. It is pointed out that contrary of Watson's view, the Hempelian deductive-nomological model of explanation is not the same as Popper's model of hypothetico-deductive confirmation of hypotheses. However, it is true that archaeology is threatened by descriptivism, relativism and idiographicism.

This section provides information on several U.S. government publications on works of art and artifacts. They include the book Guide for Patent Draftsmen from the Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office, the periodical All Hands, Magazine of the U.S. Navy from the Department of Defense and the book Application for Fullbright-Hays Training Grants from the Department of Education among others.