<HTML>In my opinion, repeatability is merely a method for testing an hypothesis. Since there is no way to repeat history to see if it would turn out the same way, then repeatability is NOT an option in archaeology.
However, archaeology has an advantage that other sciences do not have... a finite amount of information.
Given any finite system, it is possible organize the elements into a logical sequence that explains, via cause and effect relationships, the successive pieces of information.
This leaves archaeology open to future modification, as new information from the finite system may come to light... in other words, if we excavate a 200 ton diesel crane in Egypt, and find it was buried 4000 years ago, then we have to modify our theories about the sequence of cause and effect.
The problem with this system is the assumption that all data known at any specific time is ALL the date in the finite system.
It is not.
We must remain open to future revision... just as if you were building a puzzle, and somebody dumped a bunch of new pieces on the table. In this field, more so than any other, it is important to remain dispassionate about one's theories and conjectures. They may ALL need to be tossed out at a moment's notice.
To sum it up, the "repeatability" test is replaced in archaeology with the "sequential logic" test. So long as there is no contradictory data, a theory can be held to be true. The way to decide between two theories that equally account for the data is by the use of Occam's Razor. That would be more of a concensus agreement, (like Robert's Rules of Order) than it would be a valid scientific method for determining fact.
There. I hope that my longwinded tirade has helped people understand how I think of archaeology. And I hope that at least ONE person out there (besides myself) actually cares.
Anthony</HTML>
