Middle-Range Theory in Historical Archaeology

8/10/2019 Middle-Range Theory in Historical Archaeology

1/22

Middle-Range Theory in

Archaeology

Peter Kosso

Historical

1 Introduction: Conceptual Background

EVIDEN E

n archaeology, since it is an informational link between the unob-

servable past and observable data in the present, must be accountable to

justification that the link is secure and accurate. The same accountability is

true of evidence in the natural sciences where epistemic responsibility requires

an understanding of the connection between the manifest data (streaks in a

bubble chamber, for example) and the theorized entities (alpha particles) of

which the data are evidence. In the archaeological case, Lewis Binford has

suggested that the informational link is understood, and hence the evidence is

made meaningful and reliable, through middle-range theories which describe

the formation process of the data. Applying this approach to the more specific

case of historical archaeology, M. Leone and P. Potter suggest that the

documentary record of the past and the material record could be used as

independent sources of middle-range theories for each other.* They indicate

though, that this epistemic opportunity in historical archaeology is rarely

exploited.

The purpose of this paper is to present an analysis of evidence in a particular

case of historical archaeology to show the middle-range theories in action. By

focusing on how the evidential link is made between observational data and

the objects and events of theoretical interest it will be shown that middle-range

theories are almost always implicit in the evidence, and that they can be

articulated and evaluated for their independence from the theories their

evidence is used to test. It is this independence that allows the theory-

influenced evidence to be objective evidence nonetheless. Furthermore, the

implicit status of the middle-range theories in the case at hand motivates the

suggestion that documentary and material information participate more often

*Department of Philosophy, Northern

Arizona University, PO Box 6011, Flagstaff, AZ 8601 l-

6011, U.S.A.

Received 19 August 1992; n

fin l

form 21 October 1992.

L.

Binford, General Introduction,

in L. Binford (ed.), For Theory Bui lding in Archaeology

New

York: Academic Press, 1977). p. 7.

2M. Leone and P. Potter, Issues in Historical Archaeology, in M. Leone and P. Potter (eds),

The Recovery of Meaning (Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1988).

Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci.

Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 163-184, 1993.

Printed in Great Britain

163

003 3681/93 S6.00 + 0.00

0 1993. Pergamon Press Ltd


2/22

164 Studi es in Hi stor y and Phil osophy of Science

in such a reciprocal relation than Leone and Potter indicate. The middle-range

theorizing simply goes without saying.

This is not to be a discussion of the structure of confirmation. It is not about

the nature of the connection between the evidence, once youve got it, and a

hypothesis. It is rather about the nature of the evidence itself and its relation to

theoretical claims invoked to enhance the informational value of data.

As a case study, this is an empirical contribution to a description of

archaeological and scientific evidence, a description that requires a component

of conceptual analysis as well. Like science itself, philosophy of science must

offer both general theorizing and specific evidence. The specifics of this case

will be more meaningful if presented in their theoretical context, that is, with a

preliminary sketch of the conceptual analysis it is intended to complement. To

this end, I now briefly outline the theorizing which will help structure the

subsequent evidence.3

The accomplishment of theorizing, in science as in our everyday knowledge

about the world around us, is to make expansive claims about what is

happening or has happened behind the scenes, beyond what is manifest in

experience. Theories make claims about unobservable objects and events of all

sorts, the tiny, the distant, the cumulative, the past. Evidential claims which

function to test a theory must be relevant to these objects and events

mentioned by the theory, and to the accessible, particular objects and events

which are mid-sized, here and now. A complete picture of evidence then, must

include claims, theoretical claims, which describe the link between accessible

objects and the phenomena which make contact with theory. It is an appeal to

theory, to revive a previous example, which allows the physicist to call these

streaks in the bubble chamber indicators of alpha decay. These streaks mean

alpha decay.

The claims which add this kind of meaning and relevance to the data are

often descriptions of how the data are formed. In describing the causal process

which led from phenomenon of evidential interest (alpha decay) to the final

observable event (streaks), the data are shown to be an image of the pheno-

menon. Elsewhere4 I have referred to these claims which reveal the evidentially

relevant information in observations as accounting theories, indicating that

scientific evidence is not simply an episode of observation but an observation

that is accountable in the sense that the scientist, or at least the scientific

community at large, must know the circumstances of formation of the observa-

tion to know both what it means - that is, in what sense it is relevant to the

particular theory for which it is evidence - and to know that it is reliably

The full treatment of this conceptual analysis can be found in P. Kosso, Science and

Objectivity,

The Journal of Phil osophy 86 1989), 245-257,

and P. Kosso, Method in

Archaeology: Middle-Range Theory as Hermeneutics,

American An tiqui ty 56 621-627.

KOSSO, Science and Objectivity,

ibid.


3/22

M iddle-Range Theory i n H i st ori cal Archaeol ogy

165

linked to the phenomenon it describes. Evidential knowledge, like theoretical

knowledge, must be accountable. The accounting claims could alternatively be

thought of as imaging theories in the case of using an instrument such as a

microscope to link a specimen of interest to an observable image. In the

context of archaeology, Lewis Binford identifies the claims which give meaning

to the static archaeological record as middle-range theories. As Binford puts it,

middle-range theories describe the formation process of the archaeological

record.5

This informational link between present and past is a necessary

component of archaeological evidence since only through an accurate under-

standing of such processes can we reliably give meaning to the facts that

appear, from the past, in the contemporary era.6

Regardless of what you call them, the point here is that any accountable

claims which go beyond the episodic data will require something like middle-

range theories, accounting theories. These theories will not always, in fact not

usually, be explicit in the presentation of evidence, but they must always be

available and amenable to articulation. This is to say that while it may be too

strict to insist that one must in fact give justification for all scientific claims, it

is a basic responsibility that the scientific community must at least have

justification available, even for evidential claims.

This conclusion is based on principles of what theories do and what is

required to make observations relevant to theory. We need to see now that in

fact, not only in principle, this is the case and that middle-range theories can be

seen in action and can be articulated. Since the conclusion in principle is very

general, dealing with any activity of theorizing beyond the apparent data,

accounting theories or middle-range theories (I use the terms interchangeably)

should be discoverable in cases of evidence in natural sciences, social sciences,

and even our day-to-day efforts to understand the world around us. The

exposure of middle-range theories in the context of historical archaeology is

the primary task of this paper, but it is done with the belief that similar

analysis will be as fruitful in other archaeological and scientific cases.

There is a secondary point I hope to make through the case study, a point

that will help to fit the analysis of evidence into a bigger picture of the

justification of scientific knowledge. Middle-range theories, the case will show,

are not special kinds of theories with a special kind of content. They are not

necessarily of middle-generality or of middling confirmation (nor particularly

solid confirmation). They are just regular theories that are, in the particular

circumstances that we find them here, used in a particular way.

This fits into a coherence model of justification of scientific knowledge.

Evidential claims require theories for justification, as theories require evidence

Binford, op. cit ., note 1, p. I.

Ibid.


4/22

166

Studies i n H istory and Phi losophy of Science

for justification, and the theories which justify evidence do not bring any

epistemic privileges into the account. They must pass their own evidential and

conceptual tests. There is a kind of hermeneutic circularity in all of this, in that

the specific, particular reports of observation are guided by more general

understanding of theories, while the theoretical claims are themselves shaped

by the specifics of evidence. But it need not be a problematic circle insofar as

we can insist on an independence between the theories which influence a

particular observation and the theory for which that observation is evidence.

All evidence is guided by theory, but not necessarily by the same theory it is

used to test.

But this is a big, conceptual issue, and the programme here is to consider

some particular evidence. The bulk of the exposition is to be done through an

example in historical Greek archaeology, where evidence is sought about the

colonization by Classical Athens.

Evidence and theory in archaeology do not make for a typical case study in

the philosophy of science, but with the reciprocating relation between theory

and evidence as will be shown here, it is wise to look for similarities between

the status of evidence in archaeology and in natural science. Similarities in the

nature of observation in archaeology and natural science were pointed out by

John Fritz even before Binford introduced the concept of middle-range theory.

Fritz classified prehistoric events and objects as being indirectly observed in the

same sense as distant galaxies or atoms are indirectly observed. Much of what

follows here will be built on Fritzs foundation.

2. The Form of the Analysis

Since the goal of this case study is to demonstrate the work done by middle-

range theories and to assess the relationship between these and the object

theory, the key to the analysis is to identify and articulate the participating

claims in each presentation of scientific evidence. The example will begin with a

statement of its hypothesis, the theoretical claim being tested by the evidence.

A bit of background to the hypothesis, its importance to the science and the

motivation for its proposal, will be provided to locate the example in its larger

intellectual setting. Then the evidential claims will be presented. We will not

uphold any significant epistemic distinction between particular claims which

function as antecedent motivation for the hypothesis and those in the role of

subsequent evidence. Whether an observation takes place before or after the

actual proposal of a hypothesis, the observation can still function as evidential

support.

J. Fritz, Archaeological Systems for the Indirect Observation of the Past, in M. Leone (ed),

Contemporary

Archaeology

(Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1972), p. 136.


5/22

M iddle-Range Theory in H i st ori cal Ar chaeology 167

The example analysed here is an on-going project. It is not a closed case, and

so the evidence will be both actual, observations that have already been made,

and potential, relevant observations proposed but yet to be carried out. In

either case it is important to know of the theoretical influence which makes the

observation relevant to the hypothesis. Of these evidential claims, care will be

taken to identify two kinds: those which describe the manifest state of affairs,

the data, and those which describe the phenomena which are not manifest.

The final set of claims to be identified in the case will be those theoretical

claims used to link the manifest data to the relevant phenomena. These will be

the background information employed to tell us what the observations mean

-that is, what they indicate about the hypothesis. These are the middle-range

theories, or the accounting theories, which attest to the relevance and accuracy

of the observations. These are what make observations into evidence.

Once all these components of the evidence and testing have been identified,

the analysis will continue by assessing the relation between the hypothesis, that

is, the theory being tested, and the accounting theories. In particular, we will

evaluate the independence between these two components to check for any

covert circularity in the presentation of evidence. Finally, each case will end

with a discussion of the negotiation between theory and evidence. When things

go wrong and evidence does not match hypothetical expectation, something

has to give. With the large cast of participants in each evidential claim there is

apparently much work to be done in deciding which to revise or reject.

Initially, none are immune to revision and the ensuing give-and-take between

evidence and theory is a necessary concluding step in each case.

3.

The Cleruchy Hypothesis

This is an example of using evidence to test a theory in the domain of

historical archaeology. Historical archaeology, in contrast to prehistoric

archaeology, is a study of places and people in times past for which there is a

written record. Like all archaeology though, the technique of historical

archaeology is to use the material remains, artifacts and lasting impact on the

environment, as evidence for claims about past behaviour.

The particular example to be analysed here deals with Classical Athens and,

more specifically, with Athenian settlements outside of Attica. As understood

from ancient inscriptions and from ancient authors, the traditional view

classifies Athenian foreign settlements into three broad and somewhat flexible

categories. The distinction is based on two things: the citizenship status

(including military obligation) of the people in the settlement, and the political

Much of what follows about these settlements I have learned with much help from corre-

spondence with Mac Wallace.


6/22

168

Studies in H istory and Phi losophy of Science

autonomy of the settlers (including rights of ownership of land). Settlements

differed, in other words, in terms of the occupants obligations and rights with

respect to the homeland.

One type of settlement was the

garrison,

essentially a military outpost.

Residents of a garrison were given no land, either to work or to own. They had

virtually no rights of self-rule and they were fully obliged of military service in

the interests of Athens.

At the other extreme was the Athenian colony. Colonists generally owned

their own land in the settlement and were free to empower their own gover-

nors. They did not owe military service to Athens, but interpretations differ as

to whether they retained Athenian citizenship.

The third sort of settlement, the cleruchy, was a kind of hybrid between

garrison and colony. Cleruchs were given land to farm, though the land was

not freely disposable. They retained their Athenian citizenship and were taxed

accordingly. They were also obliged to Athens for military service. Cleruchies

seem to have been a sort of paramilitary community, an Athenian presence on

foreign soil, there to keep an eye on unwilling allies, a residential extinguisher

of brushfires of discontent. It has been suggested9 that cleruchs were chosen

from the lower classes of Athenian citizens. Service as a cleruch may have been

marketed as an assistance to the poor - the use of land in exchange for

minimal military service - but deployed in fact as a way to decrease the

population of tiff-raff at home and to control unruly neighbours at the same

time.

Many of the details about cleruchies are unknown. There are questions

about the specifics such as exactly where they were established and when. And

there are more general questions such as whether the cleruchies were generally

situated on good farm land or poor, and whether the group of cleruchs were

grouped in a defensible, perhaps even fortified, community, or spread across

the land of their hosts. The written record has so far been uninformative on

these points.

The issue of the Athenian cleruchy is relevant to studies by the Southern

Euboea Exploration Project (SEEP), a group of archaeologists at work on a

regional study of, not surprisingly, the southern third of the island of Euboea.

(Map 1 shows the island of Euboea relative to the mainland and other Greek

islands. Map 2 below shows southern Euboea, the area of study.) Several

seasons of work have been focused on the cleruchy hypothesis which is, in its

most basic presentation, the suggestion that there was a cleruchy on southern

ee, for example, R. Meiggs,

The

Athenian Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972).

p. 121.


7/22

M iddle- Range Theory in H istori cal Archaeology

169

Map I.

Euboea. It is a determinate claim about specific events in the past in the sense

that the concept of a cleruchy is reasonably well distinguished and the region

of southern Euboea is a distinctive region due to its isolation by mountains

from the rest of the island. It is a theoretical claim in the sense that it describes

unobservable objects and events.

The motivation for proposing the cleruchy hypothesis and for spending time

and money to test it is from two sources, written evidence (history) and

material evidence (archaeology). Consider first the historical record.

Herodotus and Thucydides both mention cleruchies but make only one

reference each, and neither is in southern Euboea. Herodotus writes of a

cleruchy at Chalkis in central Euboea, while Thucydides tells of a cleruchy at

Mytilini on the island of Lesbos, near the coast of Asia Minor. Later historians

add more accounts of cleruchies. Diodorus Siculus, a Sicilian writing four

centuries after the fact, writes that Athens dispatched 1000 cleruchs to be

divided into three cleruchy communities, one on Naxos, another on Andros,

Much of this work was conducted under the title of the Canadian Karystia Project, work that

was staffed and directed by SEEP personnel. Descriptions of the work and the cleruchy hypothesis

can be found in D. Keller and M. Wallace, The Canadian Karystia Project, Ectros

Du Mona?

Classique/Classicaf Views 30 1986). 155-I 59; D. Keller and M. Wallace, The Canadian Karystia

Project, 1986,

Ethos Du Monde Classique/Classical Views 31 1987), 225227;

D. Keller and

M. Wallace, How to Catch a Cleruch,

Canadian Archaeological Bull etin,

Fall (1987), 6-7; and

D. Keller and M. Wallace, The Canadian Karystia Project: Two Classical Farmsteads, Ethos Du

Mona e Classique/Classical Views 32 (1988), 151-l 57.

Epistemological questions about the historical record, questions of accuracy and trustworthi-

ness of the accounts, will be taken up later. I do not intend for any of these historical reports to be

believed unequivocally, but it is helpful at this point to present who said what about cleruchies.


8/22

17 Studi es in H i stor y and Phil osophy of Science

and a third on Euboea. Plutarch, in the

Li fe of Peri cles,

mentions the sending

of 500 cleruchs to Naxos and 250 to Andros. Though no ancient author says

explicitly how many cleruchs went to Euboea, we can put together the

information from Diodorus and from Plutarch to conclude that the remaining

250 cleruchs of the 1000 reported by Diodorus went to Euboea. Furthermore,

while the northern two-thirds of Euboea were culturally and economically

most closely associated with the mainland of Greece, the southern third of the

island participated more with the Cycladic islands, like Andros and Naxos.

This is reason to think that a dispatch of cleruchs to Andros, Naxos. and

Euboea might well be a mission to the Cyclades, that is, to Andros, Naxos, and

southern Euboea. Thus, the inference from the historical sources gives some

reason to think that Athens sent 250 cleruchs to southern Euboea. There is

some reason, that is, to entertain the cleruchy hypothesis.

Interestingly, the evidence for southern Euboeas Cycladic connection is

largely archaeological evidence. Much of the prehistoric pottery found in

southern Euboea shows similarity to Cycladic pottery and can thereby be seen

as indicative of interaction with Cycladic islands. The architecture of modern

houses in southern Euboea also shows distinct similarities to Cycladic styles

and dissimilarity from that of the northern two-thirds of Euboea.12 This is

interesting for an analysis of the nature of the evidence because it is a case of

archaeology helping to make sense of the historical evidence. Through an

independent analysis of ceramic remains, the informational content of the

textual data is enhanced. We see more fully what the text means in light of the

background knowledge about pottery.

These historical accounts might be thought of as direct references in that

they mention cleruchies explicitly, but it would be misleading to regard them as

direct information about events in the past. This is information that has been

passed along by the historian, via his sources and with his writing, through

time. There is work to be done in securing the credibility of these ancient

writers on this particular subject. Diodorus and Plutarch, after all, were

describing events that had taken place centuries earlier and their evidence is

acceptable only insofar as we can keep track of how they would know about

these things. Diodorus, in fact, is often inaccurate in his tales of ancient

Greece, underscoring the need for justification of his particular claims about

cleruchies. Pausanias, also writing centuries after cleruchs had come and gone,

also makes explicit reference to the cleruchs sent to Euboea and Naxos, and

Pausanias enjoys a good reputation for accuracy. This is due largely to his

frequent description of landscapes and monuments, features of the land and

x, for example, D. Keller, Archaeological Survey in Southern Euboea,

Greece:

A

Reconstruction of Human Activity from Neolithic Times through the Byzantine Period, (unpub-

lished Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University, 1983, pp. 64465.


9/22

M iddle-Range Theory i n H ist ori cal Ar chaeology

171

culture that are preserved today and can be checked against his account. Here

again, archaeology, the study of the material record, is used in accounting for

historical evidence.

There is another complication in reading the written evidence for cleruchies,

even when the writing is explicitly about that kind of settlement. The ancient

authors did not always use the same word to refer to a cleruchy. Thucydides,

for example, used the term apoikia (~UCOW~~U)ather than cleruchy (~S~pon~os)

in his account of the settlement at Mytilini,n but scholars know from the

context what he meant. He meant to describe a cleruchy.

The point in mentioning these uncertainties in the written record is one that

is obvious to historians. The historical text is not a direct access to the events

of the past. Its not even close. Evidential claims about the past which come

from a written record are always in need of accounting in the sense of requiring

some verification of their accuracy and reliability, and of requiring an inter-

pretation to pinpoint just what the text means, for as Kuhn points out, there

are many ways to read a text.14

Besides the ancient sources which explicitly refer to cleruchies, there is

implicit textual evidence that can be finessed from accounts of other, related

phenomena. For example, the Athenian Tribute Lists, inscriptions found in the

Athenian Agora, listing the taxesI

collected from the communities in the

empire, can be used as a source of information about cleruchies. In the year

450 B.C., Andros paid 12 talents in taxes to Athens. (One talent is equal to

6000 drachmas, a drachma being a days wage.) The subsequent year, 449,

Andros paid only 6 talents. This abrupt reduction can be explained by the

establishment of a cleruchy on the island. If the cleruchs from Athens seize a

large proportion of farmland, the commercial value of the island, as realized

by the pre-settlement residents, is diminished and the locals, in all fairness, are

assessed a lower tax. In this way, establishment of a cleruchy causes an abrupt

decrease in payment of talents to Athens, allowing historians to use the

Athenian Tribute Lists as a rough indicator of cleruchies.

The Athenian Tribute Lists record for Karystos, the principle town in

southern Euboea, a payment in 450 B.C. of 7+ talents, and in 449 a payment of

5 talents. There is no corresponding drop in the assessment for Chalkis or

Eretria, the major towns in the northern two-thirds of the island. This suggests

a cleruchy in the domain of Karystos as a cleruchy would explain the reduced

tax assessment and would fit nicely with the coincident reduction on Andros.

There are no tax records for Naxos prior to 447 B.C., but the assessment in

See A. Graham, Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece (Manchester: Manchester

University Press, 1983), p. 170.

l4T. Kuhn

The Essential Tension

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), p. xii.

ISThe ATd actually lists the Quota, one sixteenth of the taxes paid. I am grateful to Mac Wallace

for clarification of this point.


10/22

172


that year is quite minimal, an assessment that is compatible with the theory

that Naxos, Andros, and southern Euboea were all saddled with cleruchies in

the year 450/449 B.C.

Further implicit written evidence of a cleruchy in southern Euboea is in the

indication that Karystos did not participate in the Euboean revolts against

Athens of 446 and 424 B.C. It is as if the Karystians were kept under control

by resident Athenian loyalists. This, like the rest of the textual evidence

presented so far, is surely not conclusive proof of a cleruchy in southern

Euboea, but it is motivation for the hypothesis.

There is also archaeological evidence which makes the hypothesis plausible.

A recent archaeological survey by Don Keller of the Karystian Bay

watershedI revealed an apparent network of Classical-period farms on the

Paximadhi peninsula (see Map 2 below). The method of survey archaeology is

to walk over large areas of land, noting artifactual remains that are visible on

the surface. There is no excavation involved. From the surface deposits of

ceramics, worked stones, and remains of walls, information about the habi-

tation and use of the land can be reconstructed. Survey information is a

valuable complement to excavation in that it allows for an account of patterns

of land use and of behaviour spread over a large area.

It is exactly this kind of pattern-of-habitation information that turned up on

the Paximadhi. A network of sites emerged and the sites were dated as being of

Classical period (500 B.C.-320 B.C.) on the basis of the pottery remains found

on the surface at each site. (There will be more on how this is done and on the

uncertainties involved when we discuss the relevant middle-range theories.)

These sites were identified as farms on the basis of several features. Those with

remaining identifiable groundplans resemble the groundplan of farm sites in

Attica, the function of the Attic sites being known through inscriptional and

other types of evidence. The pottery on the putative farm sites in Euboea is

largely coarseware - the crude, functional stuff associated with domestic

chores - and the relatively small amount of fineware tends to rule out any

possible interpretation of the sites as being aristocratic domiciles. And finally,

the sites are located in proximity to heavily terraced land, olive presses, and

threshing floors, indicating a link between the sites of habitation and the

activities of farming. Interestingly, the Paximadhi is no longer farmed. Today

the land is marginal at best and the peninsula is barren. But the wealth of

terraces and abundance of habitation sites indicates agricultural activity in the

past, and the even spacing of the farm sites further indicates a planned

community rather than a spontaneous growth over time. If the land was

marginal in Classical times, this might explain why the tribute reduction for

Euboea was only 7+ to 5 as compared to the more impressive reduction of 12

l bKel l er p. cit.,

note

12.


11/22

M iddle-Range Theory in H istori cal Ar chaeology

173

to 6 for Andros. For this reason, it would be interesting to locate the Andros

cleruchy and evaluate the quality of its land.i8

The network of farmsites is exciting news for the cleruchy hypothesis, since

the material remains are not only compatible with the hypothesis: they seem,

with further attention to details, to indicate with greater precision where the

cleruchy was located. What the initial survey calls for though is more material

evidence and more precision. Since the written evidence indicates the presence

of 250 cleruchs, further survey is called for to find the full complement of 250

farmsites, assuming that each cleruch receives his own farm, along with a

commensurate number of graves, altars, roads, and the other accoutrements of

Classical Athenian life. More precise dating of the sites and the complex is also

needed. The crux to establishing the existence of a cleruchy is the sudden

appearance of the entire complex in roughly 450 B.C. and its equally sudden

abandonment in roughly 400 B.C. at the demise of the Athenian empire. Thus

a precision greater than Classical period would be helpful. It would also be

informative to collect background data from the surrounding area. Only by

knowing the patterns of sites and the style and fabric of pottery nearby can it

be determined that the Paximadhi is unusually well-ordered in its pattern of

settlement or unusually abrupt in the establishment and abandonment of a

complex of sites. Thus the initial survey work, while encouraging, calls most

immediately for more data.

There is a third source of motivation for the cleruchy hypothesis: empathy

with the Athenians. This is a risky technique, suitable at least in a context of

discovery, if not as justification. The idea here is to think like an Athenian and

see if it makes sense, in light of the fragmentary evidence so far, to put a

cleruchy in southern Euboea on the Paximadhi peninsula. The land is

marginal, and this might make it appropriate for a cleruchy for two reasons.

For one, there is no reason to anger the locals by confiscating their best

farmland. Better to keep the peace and get by if you can with the less desired

land. And second, the Athenians can get by with the poor farmland since these

are only lower class, poorer citizens who end up as cleruchs. If a cleruchy is a

punishment, or at least no reward, for the lower class of society, it only makes

sense to stick them with cheap land. I9 Furthermore, the Paximadhi peninsula is

a strategic place to establish a military presence. Not only is it near the

population centre of Karystos, but the peninsula juts into the important

shipping lane between Andros and the mainland. From this one position,

Paximadhi cleruchs could keep an eye on the local Karystians and the

Mac Wallace points out (private communication) that the Karystian tribute was 12 talents in

453. The reduction to 74 in 450 is unexplained.

*This good idea came from Cynthia Kosso.

Neither of these reasons for putting a cleruchy on marginal land is a considered conclusion or

even a serious hypothesis of the SEEP archaeologists. Both were casual suggestions in the course

of conversation.


12/22

174

St udi es in H istor y and Phil osophy of Science

Paximadhi Peninsula

Map 2.

important shipments of grain via Andros to Athens. Many of the Paximadhi

farmsites have an excellent view of both the sea lands and the good Karystian

farmlands.

None of this proves that there was an Athenian cleruchy on the Paximadhi

peninsula. But altogether the written and material remains make it reasonable

to pursue the cleruchy hypothesis in its now more precise formulation. The

Paximadhi supported at least part of a settlement of 250 cleruchs from the year

450/449 B.C. until roughly 405 B.C. when the Athenian empire dissolved. This

is the hypothesis to be tested.

4. The Evidence

The evidence for the testing was generated by further archaeological work as

suggested by the initial survey and the predictions of the hypothesis.

Confirmation of the hypothesis would be furthered by a linked community of

roughly 250 farmsteads with coincident periods of occupation from roughly

450 to 405 B.C., and perhaps with evidence of unusually close ties to Athens.

To this end, other areas of southern Euboea, namely the vicinities of Geraistos,

Marmari, and Kallianou, were surveyed in 1984, revealing that the pattern of

finds in the Paximadhi was distinctive. Then the remainder of the Paximadhi

peninsula was surveyed in 1986. (Only the eastern side, the Karystian bay

watershed, was done in the initial survey by Keller.) The 1986 survey showed a

continuation in the regular settlement pattern, finding more sites of roughly

Classical period and apparently for use as farmsteads. The surface materials, in

other words, seemed to bear out the prediction of an extensive community of


13/22

M iddle-Range Theory i n Hi stori cal A rchaeology

175

coincident farmsteads. But the surface remains could not fix the dates of

occupation of the sites with sufficient precision to count as clear evidence of a

cleruchy. This precise dating could only come by excavation. By excavating

one or two of the sites, hopefully determining the dates of the materials and

looking for signs of Athenian material and stylistic influence, information

would become available about the entire complex of sites. Survey shows that

the sites are related; excavation refines the information on one or two.

Together then, there is more precise information on the lot of them.

This is something of an oversimplification about the ease and efficacy of

survey archaeology. Nearly every concentration of artifacts, every findspot or

site, shows material from many time periods. A typical survey report will list

pottery finds of perhaps Archaic to Roman, or Classical to Byzantine. The

demonstration that several sites are associated and were occupied at the same

time is a complicated one which must cite relative numbers of potsherds and it

is not without ambiguity. The ambiguity though is not caused by an inade-

quacy in the middle-range theories. It is that the specimen itself is fuzzy, not

that the image is out of focus. Excavation of a site can bring the information

into even sharper focus, being in a sense a higher power microscope than

survey, and with a narrower field of view, but it will still show a fuzzy image of

a fuzzy specimen, fuzzy in the sense of having no sharp, distinct period of

occupation. In any case, the survey data of surface material plays the role of

finding evidence of community and of roughly dating the community.

Excavation is used for more careful dating as well as to reveal groundplans

of structures and to collect ceramic remains that might be diagnostic as to the

origin of the clay or vessel. Two sites were excavated by SEEP in pursuit of

evidence relevant to the cleruchy hypothesis. One was an abandoned cistern on

cape Mnima (see Map 2), found during the survey to be filled with debris. The

cistern is located within the network of farmsteads and is in a fortified and

strategic location overlooking sheltered harbours. All indications are that the

cistern was an important feature of the putative cleruchy, and dates of use of

the cistern would be dates of use of the community. The idea was simply to

excavate the cistern and determine the date of the oldest material inside. This

would be the first debris that fell in or were thrown in and not cleared out, and

would mark the end of use of the cistern as a cistern rather than a garbage pit

or a shelter from the wind. Material in the cistern, in other words, would be

evidence of the time of abandonment of an important site in the community.

Confirmation of the cleruchy hypothesis would be a date of around 405 B.C.

The other site of excavation was a putative farmsite at Palio Pithari (see

Map 2). Excavation of this very typical site would provide more pottery, and

importantly, more diagnostic pottery found in informative context with respect

to the building structure and the strata. It would provide, that is, much more

information on dating this characteristic site. It would also clarify the ground-


14/22

176

St udi es in H i stor y and Phil osophy of Science

plan of the building and allow a comparison to excavated farmsteads in Attica.

Again, if the hypothesis is true, one expects dates of occupation of the Palio

Pithari site to run from 450 B.C. to roughly 405 B.C. That would be

confirming evidence. Further confirmation would come from analysis of the

ceramic fabrics, finding at least some of the Palio Pithari pottery to be of a

fabric unlike that found at the local kiln and at sites away from the cleruchy. A

greater amount of Attic fineware or coarseware of Attic clay would indicate a

community with closer ties to Athens. In summary, the evidence for the

cleruchy hypothesis, the predictions of the hypothesis, would be that Palio

Pithari is indeed a farmsite with ties to Athens, in use during the second half of

the fifth century B.C.

The theory and predictions of the cleruchy hypothesis are clearly presented

in a SEEP report of 1986. Subsequent reports get right to the experimental

results.* The cistern was excavated in 1986, and the oldest debris were in fact

dated to around 400 B.C.** The Palio Pithari farmsite was excavated in 1987

with results that were not so unambiguously positive.23 The building was

cleared down to a bedrock floor, revealing a distinct groundplan which was

similar to several Classical farmsteads in Attica, having small rooms along the

north wall and a courtyard on the south. The pottery remains were dated into

the early fourth century, a bit later than would be expected of a cleruchs farm.

Some of the ceramic materials are still in the process of petrographic analysis

for comparison to Attic and to local Karystian clay.

This is the evidence to date for the cleruchy hypothesis and there are two

important points to note about the nature of the evidence and the role it plays

in confirmation. The first is that, in citing as evidence a Classical farmsite or

pottery from the fifth century, we are not citing things that we see. Thats not

what is on the ground. Whether in survey or in excavation it is not at all

apparent that a particular worn chip of ceramic is of late-fifth-century vessel or

that a certain jumble of stones is a wall of a farm house. What is used as

evidence is not what is seen, and that is exactly the nature of evidence that is of

concern here. The picture must be filled in with an account linking what is seen

to what functions as evidence. Thats the first point. The second involves the

question of the extent to which the evidence presented so far in fact confirms or

disconfirms the hypothesis. I will pursue these two points in order, spending

more time on the first.

What do the SEEP archaeologists see when they go looking for evidence to

Keller and Wallace, The Canadian Karystia Project,

op ci r.,

note 10.

2Keller and Wallace, The Canadian Karystia Project 1986, and The Canadian Karystia

Project: Two Classical Farmsteads, op ci t ., note 10.

zKeller and Wallace, How to Catch a Cleruch, op. ci t ., note 10.

Z3Kellerand Wallace, The Canadian Karystia Project: Two Classical Farmsteads, op ci t ., note

10.


15/22

M iddle-Range Theory i n Hi stori cal Ar chaeology

177

test the cleruchy hypothesis? Mostly they find pieces of ceramic: potsherds,

fragments of roof tiles and loom weights. They find these things and carefully

record their spatial context whether on the surface in survey or in layers from

excavation. Very few of the finds are whole pots, and a very few more are

complete enough to make obvious, without any inferential reconstruction, the

shape of the whole vessel. Mostly the data are small fragments of the body,

rim, or base of a broken vessel. Unfortunately, these fragments are not

stamped with their date or place of origin, nor are they or the places they are

found marked for their use (as, for example, being a farm or a farm tool). This

important information, the information that is relevant to claims about a

cleruchy, must be somehow unnested from the more manifest. The data must

be linked to the evidence.

The first step in the archaeological case is to record all of the useful data by

carefully describing the apparent physical features of the ceramics. This is the

pottery inventory and anyone, regardless of their knowledge of archaeology or

of the past, can do it. All it takes is average eyesight and maybe above-average

patience. In the process of inventory, a sherd is described in a standardized

language. Its colour, for example, is compared under controlled lighting to

patches of colour on the standard Munsell colour chart so that an intersubjec-

tive colour assessment is made. The ceramic fabric is inspected for inclusions

and the relative number, size, and colour of the inclusions is noted. The sherd

itself is measured for thickness and its shape is described using standardized

terms such as rolled rim or strap handle. And finally the surface of the sherd

is inspected for treatment such as glaze, slip, incisions or impressed design. All

of these inventory features are readily apparent on the potsherds. The inven-

tory reports are the data in this case of archaeological testing, but they are not

the evidence because they make no contact with the objects and events

described by theory. They are, as yet, not relevant to the phenomena predicted

by the hypothesis.

This requisite contact comes with the next step in the treatment of the finds,

the preparation of a catalogue. This requires substantial background know-

ledge on the part of the individual cataloguer and the archaeological commu-

nity as a whole. A sherd which has been inventoried is now evaluated by the

experts in an effort to determine the type of vessel it is from, the use of the

vessel, and, most importantly, its date. The type of vessel is judged by

comparing dimensions, fabric, and cross-sectional shape of the sherd to

corresponding features of whole or nearly-whole vessels found elsewhere. The

use of the vessel can then be inferred from its shape and from the context in

which it and its comperanda are found.

Dating the sherd is also dependent on the identification of the type of vessel

(or in some cases on the physical features of the material or surface treatment).

The sherd is distinguished by the vessel it is from, or by distinctive decoration

SHI PS 24: 2-B


16/22

178

Studies in istory and Philosophy of Science

or glaze, and can be then associated with similar pieces that have been found

elsewhere in datable circumstances. Some excavations, notably in Athens at

the Agora and the Kerameikos, and at Corinth, have uncovered specimens of

pottery in context with dated inscriptions, with coins, or associated with

buildings that are datable by historic reference. From these excavations come

source-books of pottery types and their dates. This punctuated information

can be filled out through studies of stylistic evolution and through seriation

studies, attending to relative amounts of ceramic styles as a function of time.

The accuracy of dating these reference materials is of course dependent on a

thorough understanding of their context. An object kept for generations as an

heirloom, for example, might eventually be discarded with a coin of much later

period. A casual analysis of the tailings of an archaeological dig, for another

example, might find a beer bottle next to an overlooked neolithic potsherd, but

it would be a mistake to date one artifact by its association with the other.

Thus, the datable circumstances of the Athenian Agora require an under-

standing of the texts and buildings, including the intent and accuracy of the

writing of the texts found with the pottery or of texts about the buildings, and

the circumstances of deposition.

By attending to the comparable features of the pottery found on the

Paximadhi peninsula and by matching these features to pottery found in

datable contexts, the catalogued sherds bear information of their own dates -

information, that is, of activities in the past. Soft, powdery, orange fineware

with black glaze, for example, is indicative of activities in the Classical period.

This kind of pottery means occupation of the site during that time period. But

it is so meaningful only with the support of the antecedent claims which make

the general connections between the ceramic data and the evidential dates. In

this case these are claims about the coincidence of pots and texts or pots and

historic buildings in the Athenian Agora, the dating of coincident inscriptions

or coins, and the accuracy of this dating as secured by knowing the circum-

stances of deposition, the intent of the writing (that it is not itself a fiction) and

the like. Its not that these claims are suspect or complicated. The reason for

pointing them out is simply to show that they are being relied on and that they

are, at least in part, claims about the past. They are, in the archaeological

context, theoretical claims. And since they are being used to make the

connection between the manifest archaeological record and the information it

has to offer about the past, these are middle-range theories. They are used to

tell the SEEP archaeologists what the sherds mean for the cleruchy hypothesis.

These middle-range theories are all pretty simple claims, about the veracity

of the dating material and the legitimacy of dating a particular pot by its

association with a particular text, but simple accounting claims may be all that

are needed in this case because it is pretty simple information that is being

sought in the pottery from the Paximadhi. All we are getting by way of


17/22

Middle-Range Theory in H istori cal Ar chaeology

179

evidence is a date. More complicated information, such as who made a

particular pot or exactly what it contained, would demand more complicated

middle-range theorizing. Dating a pot (and in turn the site where it is found) is

not unlike sizing a microbe by positioning the little creature next to something

else of otherwise known size. It is in the process of otherwise knowing the size

of the comparanda where middle-range theories (accounting theories) are used

in the case of the microbe. The relatively simple question of size may call for

only simple middle-range theories, while more involved information, such as

composition of the microbe, would involve more middle-range theorizing.

Ascertaining the dates of occupation of the sites on the Paximadhi peninsula

then makes use of some amount of middle-range theory. So too does another

aspect of the evidence used to test the cleruchy hypothesis: the analysis of

ceramic fabric to see if it is of Attic origin or from local Karystian kilns. This

analysis is limited to coarseware pottery, the stuff with many large inclusions,

because it is the inclusions themselves which are characteristic of the place of

manufacture. The ceramic samples for this petrographic analysis are still at the

lab, but there is no question that the cleruchy-relevant evidence as to whether

the Palio Pithari coarseware is or is not from clay deposits in Attica will be

heavily dependent on middle-range theories. The actual data in this case will be

some sequence of chemical events in the Fitch lab of the British School in

Athens and these must be made to speak of ancient pottery manufacture. A

theoretical understanding will be needed to ensure that the petrochemical

similarities or dissimilarities in the Euboean and Attic ceramics must be due to

similar or dissimilar origin and not simply inevitable environmental processes

that show their effects over time. Chemical analysis speaks of associations

between ancient communities only with a lexicon linking chemical phenomena

to mineralogical composition to deposits of clay and the manufacture of pots.

The results of the fabric analysis are just coming in, and they are bound to

be somewhat ambiguous when they are completed. If the results are negative in

the sense of showing no greater proportion of Attic fabric at the purported

cleruchy sites than at other sites around the Karystian bay, this will not

necessarily tell against the cleruchy hypothesis. No one really knows that

cleruchs tended to use nonlocal coarseware. In fact, fleshing out the under-

standing of the cleruchs behaviour is part of the project. And if the evidence is

of more Attic pottery, there remains the ambiguity as to whether this is pottery

brought from home or pottery bought in trade by some group of residents on

the Paximadhi. The problem here is that there is no middle-range theory to

link the ceramic feature of being an Attic fabric and the feature of being

brought over with Athenian citizens. Such a relation could only be established

by studying what was already known to be a settlement of Athenians such as a

cleruchy. But that would be begging the question in the Euboea case as it

would breech the independence from theory for which the evidence is a test.


18/22

180

tudies i n Hi story and Phil osophy of Science

Such is the difficulty in trying to detect an object and at the same time

determine its properties.

There is a similar kind of ambiguity in the evidence of the groundplan of the

Palio Pithari site. There is no disputing the observation that the plan resembles

those of typical Classical farms in Attica. What is missing is the proof that this

indicates any sort of influence of Attic farm design on the residents of the

Paximadhi peninsula, or that the design identifies the Palio Pithari site as a

farm. The similarity of design could be a result of Attic influence or it could be

an independent development under the influence of similar environmental

conditions in the two places. Persistent north winds lead to a predominance of

residential sites with small rooms tucked against the north wall and courtyards

on the sheltered south, and this shared design has nothing to do with

communications between the residents. What is missing in the cleruchy hypo-

thesis case is a middle-range theory linking groundplan to use and/or origin of

design of a building.

The point is that the data are informative evidence when there are indepen-

dently justified middle-range theories to make the connection to the hypo-

thesis, and not otherwise. Furthermore, where these theoretical links between

data and phenomena are at work, they can be uncovered from their normally

covert activities and made explicit. Thus in the dating of pottery there must be,

and there are, claims linking descriptions of sherds to dates of pots, the step

from inventory to catalogue. These simple middle-range theories are often

presented as pictures with terse captions rather than as discursive theories, but

they are nonetheless claims which connect the information in the present

archaeological record with information about the unobservable past. And

these claims which account for the evidence used to test the cleruchy hypo-

thesis are accountable to their own evidential and theoretical support. The

pottery dating catalogues are supported by evidence that is believable and

meaningful in light of theoretical claims about the texts, and buildings that

provide a datable context.

The middle-range theories, in other words, are just like any other theories.

They are nothing special when it comes to justification. They help and they

need help. The pottery studied in its context in southern Euboea and dated

under the influence of previous ceramic theorizing will itself be catalogued and

published to serve in interpreting ceramic data found elsewhere. The theo-

retical claims which are the accomplishment of the southern Euboea work will

become the tools of evidential accounting in some other situation. They too

can be used as middle-range theories.

Note also that the accounting theories (the middle-range theories) used in

the dating of pottery in this case are independent of the cleruchy hypothesis

itself. There is no cleruchy information, no presumption of anything about the

particular hypothesis in the dating of pottery from its context in the Athenian


19/22

M iddle-Range Theory i n H ist ori cal Archaeology

181

Agora. So while there is a clear theoretical influence on the evidence used to

test the theory about a cleruchy, it is not a case of circular, self-serving testing.

The theory does not sponsor its own evidence. It is rather independent

evidence and in this sense the testing is objective.

The same is true in the potential evidence of analysing the ceramic fabric.

The middle-range theories are amenable to articulation and they are normal

theories which are the accomplishments of chemistry and geology, but they are

in this case used to link singular properties of the present to general informa-

tion of the cleruchy hypothesis. These theories are clearly independent of the

cleruchy hypothesis, and thats important.

Having presented the hypothesis, the evidence, and the middle-range theor-

ies which give meaning to the evidence, the final question is of the status of the

hypothesis in light of the testing. The evidence from the Palio Pithari excava-

tion, in particular the dating of the abandonment of the site, tend to discon-

firm the hypothesis. Put more symmetrically, there is tension in the network of

claims which includes the hypothesis, evidence, data, and middle-range theor-

ies. This incompatibility alone does not indicate which of the claims must be

revised or rejected. Following Quine and Duhem, no claim is immune to

revision or rejection, and the hypothesis is potentially retainable if there is

reason to doubt some other parts of the network. For example, the auxiliary

theories, claims that have not been discussed here but which are used to draw

implications from the hypothesis, are part of the tension. Perhaps the proposed

dates of the Karystian cleruchy are off. The start date is informed by relatively

clear and secure textual evidence and is therefore well entrenched. But the

termination date is more flexible. If, for example, the cleruchs did not farm

their own land but only profited by renting it to locals, then it is not

unreasonable to expect the farming activities to continue even after the

cleruchs left for home. In this case, only the start date of the farmsite is

definitive enough to be telling evidence for or against a cleruchy, and the start

date matches expectation.

The data claims, the pottery inventories for example, could also be ques-

tioned. If the pottery is wrongly described it is likely to be wrongly dated. But

this is a worry and a potential saving of the hypothesis that will last only as

long as it takes to have another look and recheck the sherds.

But the evidential claims, supported as they are by middle-range theorizing,

are more vulnerable to lingering doubt. The date assessments of the standard

comparanda pottery could be questioned, though this is unlikely because of

the widescale upset this would cause in the larger web of beliefs about the

ancient world. In other words, this would result in more tension rather than

less. But perhaps the propriety of using Athenian or Corinthian stylistic dating

in the context of Euboea could be questioned. Perhaps pottery styles change

across social class as well as through time, and the class of people on the


20/22

182


Paximadhi, these cleruchs, used each particular style at a slightly shifted time

period than did the Athenians. Unfortunately, the most coherent of these

pictures would have the lower class, displaced cleruchs getting the pottery

styles

later

than the resident Athenians, thereby giving the Palio Pithari pottery

even later dates and worsening the fit between evidence and hypothesis.

The fate of the cleruchy hypothesis is still up in the air. The outcome though

will have a relevance beyond writing the history of southern Euboea. The

degree of certainty in our understanding of whether or not there is a cleruchy

near Karystos will influence our understanding of the texts which originally

motivated the hypothesis. It will add meaning to the figures of the Athenian

Tribute Lists and assist in interpreting the ancient authors. In this way, a

dialectic of assistance between textual and material records is established to

take advantage of the independence of the two sources of information. As

Leone and Potter suggest each source can be profitably used in the role of

middle-range theory for the other. It is a back-and-forth sort of negotiation

between the historical and archaeological claims. Reading the texts will suggest

an interpretation of the material data (as the reading of Diodorus and Plutarch

motivated the hypothesis that the Paximadhi sites were part of a cleruchy), and

in turn the archaeological evidence may influence an interpretation of texts.

(The dating of the Palio Pithari site makes it less likely that the Euboea

described in the sending of cleruchs to Andros, Naxos, and Euboea was

southern Euboea. Or perhaps Diodorus, Plutarch, and Pausanias got the whole

thing wrong and there were no cleruchs at all.) Thus the theory of Euboean

cleruchs can participate with middle-range theories in other circumstances. So

too with the evidential claims discussed in this case, for example the pottery

catalogue. What is an accomplishment on this project can be a tool on

another.

The point in presenting these details of evidence in the test of the cleruchy

hypothesis is simply to show that in this test-case the middle-range theories,

the accounting theories, are at work and can be identified and talked about.

They are the required informational links between the archaeological record,

the data, and the events and objects of the past which are relevant to the

hypothesis and are the evidence. They are what you have to know to make the

connection between what is on the ground and the objects and events of

interest, that is, those things which make contact with the theory being tested.

Furthermore the example shows that the middle-range theories are simply

theoretical accomplishments from other concerns. They endure their own trial

by evidence and must stand by their own justification.

5. Summary and Generalizations

This paper began with some predictions about the nature of archaeological

and scientific evidence, predictions based on a conceptual argument. Claims


21/22

M iddle-Range Theory in H istori cal Ar chaeology

183

about the unobserved require evidence of the unobserved, and this in turn calls

for connections between the data of observation and these evidential claims

about phenomena. Claims about these connections are theoretical claims in the

sense of being descriptive of unobservable events and objects. To account for

the formation of the observed data, to show what the data mean with respect

to the hypothesis, requires some mention of what is going on behind the

scenes. In this sense there must be middle-range theorizing. The prediction is

that all evidence will be made meaningful and credible with the support of

middle-range theories.

This prediction has been put to the test by evidence from historical archaeo-

logy. The analysis showed that middle-range theories are at work and can be

articulated. Furthermore, they are not of a special kind of theory. Any theory

could be used in the role of middle-range and in the examples we have caught

the theoretical accomplishments of one context in the act of accounting for the

evidence in another. And finally, these accounting theories are not, as the idea

of middle-range is sometimes interpreted, of middling generality. Some

accounting claims are very general, as about physical interactions, while others

are specific as about a particular detector or a particular ancient author. This

distinguishes Binfords use, and the use here, of the label middle-range theory

from alternative applications by, for example, Schaffe34 who means exactly

theories of mid-generality, regardless of their use.

The philosophical point in all of this is not to show that archaeology makes

hypotheses and tests them against the evidence as is the practice in natural

sciences. The point is rather about the evidence used in this process and, for

that matter, in any process of acquiring knowledge beyond the manifest. The

evidence will be influenced by theory and the influencing theories can be

articulated. And insofar as we can insist on independence between these

influencing theories and the object theory, the hypothesis, the evidence will be

objective and the testing will be meaningful. Thus it is not that we rely on only

the best theories to account for the evidence, if by best is implied some

dispensation from doubt. We rely on regular old theories, themselves part of

the web of scientific beliefs. The examples show that beliefs which give

meaning to the observations are themselves part of the network, and their

epistemic contribution does not come from some epistemic priority but from

an epistemic independence.

Acknowledgements - I

am

pleased

to be able to thank the archaeologists of the

Southern Euboea Exploration Project, Don Keller, Cynthia Kosso, Roz Schneider and

See K. Schaffer, Theory Structure in the Biochemical Sciences, The Journal of Medicine and

Philosophy 5 1980), 57-95.


22/22

184

St udies i n Hi story and Phil osophy

of Science

Mac Wallace, for their help toward my understanding and enjoying archaeology, and

for letting me carry the zambilis.

The conclusions expressed in this paper, such as the status of the cleruchy hypothesis

in light of the current evidence or the ambiguity of certain evidence, are entirely my own

and do not necessarily match the views of the archaeologists of the Southern Euboea

Exploration Project.

My work has been supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation,

number DIR-8917989.

Documents

￼Middle-Range Theory in Historical Archaeology

Middle-Range Theory in Historical Archaeology