ABSTRACT
As seen in Chapter 9, the processual reaction to post-processual archaeology, while accepting most of its aspects, was worried about verification. The knowledge claims of archaeologists seemed to be undermined by the post-processual emphasis on contextuality. If interpretations could not be based on universal theories and instruments of measurement, and if they could not be tested on objective neutral data, how could we distinguish between ‘real’ and ‘fringe’ archaeology? I have shown that in fact these problems were being raised within processual archaeology. Binford and Sabloff’s (1982, 138) statement that ‘the testing of theories was thus an illusion’ was as radical as anything I or Shanks and Tilley have written. However, these unsettling tendencies were identified with post-processual views. They were seen as too dangerous to admit into the core of the processual discipline.
