| 1. Domain | 1.1 Scope of the Domain | Boundaries | The range of phenomena the science includes and excludes. | Studies how human societies create, use, modify, and discard material objects and technologies, and how archaeologists reconstruct behavior, social organization, and cultural meaning from material remains. Includes artifacts, manufacturing processes, technological systems, site formation, depositional practices, spatial patterning, taphonomy, chaîne opératoire, experimental replication, and interpretive frameworks. Excludes purely symbolic systems unless materially expressed; excludes environmental processes unless interacting with material deposition. |
| | Scale | The spatial, temporal, or organizational level at which the science operates (e.g., quantum, cellular, social, cosmic). | Operates across artifact, household, community, regional, and long-term temporal scales, from momentary tool-use marks to multi-millennial technological traditions, spanning microscopic residues to landscape-scale archaeological features. |
| 1.2 Ontological Commitments | Entities | The kinds of things assumed to exist within the domain (particles, organisms, agents, fields, etc.). | Artifacts, ecofacts, features, sites, tools, materials (stone, clay, metal, bone), manufacturing traces, waste products (debitage), spatial distributions, residues, structures, technologies, production sequences, cultural styles, taphonomic agents, stratigraphic layers. |
| | Properties | The fundamental attributes these entities possess (mass, charge, genotype, preference, etc.). | Material composition, durability, wear patterns, technological complexity, production cost, functional attributes, stylistic traits, depositional context, spatial association, taphonomic alteration, transformation sequences, cultural transmission pathways. |
| | Categories | The basic ontological types used to classify domain elements (substances, processes, relations, structures). | Artifact types (lithics, ceramics, metalwork, textiles, architecture); technological systems (knapping, firing, metallurgy, weaving, construction); site types (habitation, ritual, workshop, quarry); depositional contexts (primary, secondary, mixed); interpretive frameworks (functional, stylistic, technological, behavioral). |
| 1.3 State-Variables | Variables | The measurable or definable properties that describe system conditions. | Artifact frequency; raw-material availability; spatial density; wear/use indicators; residue presence; fracture patterns; feature dimensions; site stratigraphy; soil chemistry; production time; tool efficiency; distribution patterns across regions; technological diversity indices; depositional rate. |
| | Parameterization | How variables encode and represent the system’s state. | Encoded using material assays, compositional analyses (XRF, petrography), morphometric data, 3D scans, spatial GIS layers, stratigraphic sequences, chaîne opératoire reconstruction steps, dated contexts, tool-efficiency measures, residue analyses, thermoluminescence or radiocarbon dates. |
| 1.4 Admissible Idealizations | Simplifications | Conceptual reductions used to make the domain tractable (point masses, rational agents, perfect gases). | Treating artifacts as perfect proxies for behavior; assuming stylistic traits are stable over time; idealizing production sequences; ignoring post-depositional mixing; modeling sites as static; assuming uniform skill level; assuming one-to-one correspondence between tool and function; ignoring informal or ephemeral technologies (fiber, wood). |
| | Validity Conditions | The limits and contexts in which idealizations hold or break down. | Break down under extensive taphonomic disturbance, reuse of artifacts, mixed stratigraphy, incomplete assemblages, overlapping cultural phases, ephemeral materials lost to decay, culturally ambiguous artifacts, or multi-functional tools that resist simple categorization. |
| 1.5 Domain Assumptions | Structural Assumptions | Background ontological stances such as determinism, continuity, randomness, discreteness. | Material remains reflect human behavior and cultural choices; technology mediates adaptation; manufacturing sequences encode technical knowledge; deposition patterns reflect activity organization; spatial distributions retain behavioral signal despite taphonomy; cultural transmission influences stylistic and technological variation; archaeological context preserves interpretable traces. |
| | Implicit Commitments | Unstated but necessary assumptions that shape the field’s conceptual structure. | Assumes recoverability of behavior from material residues; assumes material culture has patterned variability; assumes archaeologists can distinguish cultural vs natural processes; assumes typologies and classifications capture real behavioral differences; assumes stratigraphy reflects chronological order. |
| 1.6 Internal Coherence Requirements | Consistency | The demand that domain concepts do not contradict one another. | Artifact classifications must align with technological and functional data; stratigraphic interpretation must match depositional logic; chaîne opératoire sequences must correspond to wear and breakage patterns; spatial models must align with feature distributions; cultural reconstructions must not contradict dating evidence or environmental context. |
| | Compatibility | The requirement that entities, variables, and assumptions fit together into a unified descriptive framework. | Requires harmony among archaeological science (dating, chemistry, taphonomy), ethnography, experimental replication, spatial analysis, technological studies, and environmental reconstruction. Interpretations must align across material, behavioral, and contextual datasets. |
| 2. Evidence Layer | 2.1 Observable Phenomena | Observables | The aspects of the domain that can produce detectable signals accessible to measurement. | Artifact counts and distributions; tool morphology; wear and fracture patterns; residue traces (blood, starch, lipids); manufacturing debris (debitage patterns); ceramic temper and firing marks; metallurgical slag; architectural remains; hearths and ash layers; stratigraphic sequences; soil chemistry anomalies; microartifacts; 3D spatial clustering; refitting sequences; stylistic variation; taphonomic alterations. |
| | Detection Limits | The boundaries of what can be resolved or sensed by current instruments or methods. | Loss of organic materials; erosion or disturbance of sites; mixing of stratigraphy; microscopic residues lost to weathering; limited detection of ephemeral structures; partial or fragmentary artifacts; resolution limits of imaging tools; contamination of residues; inability to reconstruct ambiguous chaînes opératoires; equifinality in functional interpretation; post-depositional chemical alterations. |
| 2.2 Measurement Systems | Units | Standardized quantifications (meters, seconds, volts, decibels, dollars, etc.) necessary for consistent comparison. | Metric dimensions (mm/cm); mass (g); artifact frequency counts; density per cubic meter of sediment; chemical concentration (ppm); isotopic ratios; hardness values; refit counts; spatial coordinates; radiometric ages (BP, ka); ceramic firing temperatures; residue absorbance values; tool-efficiency measures. |
| | Instruments | Devices and tools (microscopes, spectrometers, sensors, surveys, detectors) used to produce measurements. | Microscopes (optical, SEM); mass spectrometers (XRF, ICP-MS); petrographic microscopes; 3D scanners; CT imaging; use-wear analysis kits; residue extraction tools; GIS systems; GPS devices; total stations; flotation equipment; TL/OSL dating systems; radiocarbon AMS; metallurgical furnaces; portable spectrometers. |
| 2.3 Operational Definitions | Definitions | Terms defined by specific measurement procedures, ensuring empirical clarity. | Artifact type defined by morphology and manufacturing traits; technological system defined by sequence of production actions; context defined by stratigraphic provenience; feature defined as non-portable anthropogenic structure; residue defined by detectable biomolecular signature; assemblage defined as artifact cluster from coherent context; refitting defined as joining broken fragments to reconstruct reduction sequence. |
| | Procedures | The explicit steps required to perform a measurement in a reproducible way. | Systematic excavation; stratigraphic recording; artifact cataloging and typological coding; microscopic wear analysis; residue extraction and testing; petrographic thin-sectioning; compositional analysis; spatial mapping; refit analysis; experimental replication of technologies; controlled firing or knapping experiments; documentation of chaîne opératoire; radiometric dating procedures. |
| 2.4 Data Acquisition | Protocols | Formal processes for gathering data under controlled or standardized conditions. | Standardized excavation grids; controlled context recording; systematic sampling of sediments; flotation and sieving for microartifacts; consistent cataloging procedures; multi-stage artifact processing; lab protocols for residue and compositional analysis; controlled storage and curation; documentation of tool marks and features; repeated measurements for reliability. |
| | Sampling | Rules determining which subset of the domain is measured and how representative it is. | Random sampling within excavation units; stratified sampling across layers; targeted sampling of features; raw-material source sampling; systematic survey transects; selection of diagnostic artifacts for detailed analysis; subsampling for residue or petrographic testing; inter-site comparative sampling. |
| 2.5 Data Character & Format | Data Types | The form raw evidence takes (time series, spectra, images, counts, qualitative records). | Metric datasets; 3D models; artifact catalogs; wear-pattern matrices; stratigraphic logs; GIS spatial layers; compositional spectra; radiometric age tables; microartifact counts; experimental-replication logs; residue profiles; refit networks; photogrammetric records. |
| | Resolution | The granularity or precision with which data is captured. | Determined by excavation precision, stratigraphic clarity, instrument sensitivity (SEM/XRF/ICP-MS), 3D-scanning resolution, sample preservation, size of artifacts, contextual integrity, and temporal resolution of dating techniques (± years to ± millennia). |
| 2.6 Reliability & Calibration | Calibration | Adjustment procedures ensuring instruments produce accurate results. | Cross-checking measurements across analysts; replicating residue tests; calibrating spectrometers; validating compositional groups with known-source materials; inter-lab comparison of petrographic readings; consistency checks in stratigraphic interpretation; refitting tests to validate reduction-sequence hypotheses; experimental archaeology to calibrate use-wear interpretations. |
| | Error Characterization | Identification and quantification of noise, uncertainty, bias, and measurement error. | Measurement error; cataloging inconsistency; contamination in residue analysis; misidentification of raw materials; instrumental drift; stratigraphic inversion; taphonomic distortion; equifinality in functional interpretation; incomplete recovery; sampling bias; dating-error margins; false-positive residue signatures. |
| 3. Structural Layer | 3.1 Patterns & Regularities | Laws / Relations | Stable, repeatable patterns governing how observables behave across conditions. | Technological change follows cumulative, path-dependent trajectories; raw-material constraints shape tool morphology; reduction sequences produce predictable debitage patterns; wear signatures correlate with specific tool functions; pottery firing leaves systematic thermochemical markers; spatial clustering reveals activity areas; stylistic variation tracks cultural transmission; depositional processes follow regular stratigraphic logic; decay and preservation follow predictable taphonomic rules. |
| | Invariants | Quantities or properties that remain constant under transformations (symmetries, conservation laws). | Physical laws of fracture, heat, and material behavior; consistent chaîne opératoire steps for specific technologies; recurrent tool categories across cultures (scrapers, blades, cores); stable spatial associations among features (hearth + midden + workspace); preservation biases patterned by material durability; repeated morphological solutions to similar functional demands. |
| 3.2 Causal Architecture | Mechanisms | Underlying processes or structures that produce the observed regularities. | Tool production → use → discard → deposition → post-depositional alteration → archaeological recovery; Raw-material quality → reduction strategy → tool form; Cultural transmission → stylistic norms; Functional demands → technological choices; Social organization → distribution of production tasks; Environmental conditions → preservation patterns; Human behavior → spatial structuring of sites; Heat/chemical processes → transformation of ceramics or metals. |
| | Pathways | Organized sequences of interactions forming a causal chain or network. | Resource availability → technological innovation → artifact proliferation; Skill level → production efficiency → reduction intensity; Behavior → spatial activity → patterned deposition; Use-wear → surface modification → detectable microtraces; Occupation episode → feature construction → stratigraphic accumulation; Cultural contact → stylistic exchange → hybrid artifact forms. |
| 3.3 Theoretical Vocabulary | Concepts | Core terms that encode the domain’s structure (force, gene, equilibrium, field). | Chaîne opératoire, reduction sequence, use-wear, refitting, taphonomy, assemblage, context, feature, spatial association, stylistic drift, technological tradition, standardization, raw-material economy, depositional process, behavioral archaeology, formation processes, technological choice. |
| | Classifications | Taxonomies, categories, or typologies that organize entities and relations. | Lithic typologies; ceramic typologies; metallurgical categories; architectural feature types; production techniques; site-function categories; depositional context (primary, secondary, mixed); tool-function classes; stylistic variants; technological phases; degrees of standardization. |
| 3.4 Formal Representations | Equations | Mathematical constructs expressing laws, relations, or mechanisms. | Fracture-mechanics equations; heat-transformation curves for ceramics and metal; statistical models for standardization (coefficient of variation); spatial-density functions; radiometric decay equations; reduction-index calculations; diffusion models of cultural transmission; entropy measures of assemblage diversity; refit-network metrics. |
| | Models | Structured representations—mathematical, computational, or conceptual—used to predict and explain phenomena. | Chaîne opératoire flow diagrams; reduction-sequence models; experimental archaeology models; spatial GIS models of activity areas; depositional-process models; taphonomic filters; stylistic transmission models; feature–artifact association diagrams; stratigraphic-lens models. |
| 3.5 Idealized Structures | Simplified Models | Purposeful abstractions that capture essential dynamics while omitting irrelevant detail. | Single-function interpretation of tools; perfectly preserved assemblages; no post-depositional disturbance; linear technological evolution; homogeneous cultural traditions; uniform skill level; discrete activity zones; perfect correlation between form and function; static typologies; no reuse or recycling. |
| | Limit Conditions | Regimes where specific models or approximations hold (classical vs. quantum, linear vs. nonlinear). | Fail under mixed assemblages, recycling, multi-function tools, disturbed stratigraphy, incomplete chaînes opératoires, rapid cultural change, taphonomic overprinting, ephemeral materials, ambiguous functional markers, overlapping occupation phases, or technological convergence producing similar forms with different functions. |
| 3.6 Integrative Frameworks | Unifying Theories | Higher-order structures that connect disparate laws or mechanisms under a coherent whole. | Behavioral archaeology linking material traces to actions; technological-systems theory integrating production, use, and discard; cultural transmission theory unifying stylistic and technological change; formation-process theory linking natural and cultural deposition; biocultural approaches integrating environment and technological adaptation; network theory linking artifact relations and social structure. |
| | Interdisciplinary Links | Points where the theory connects to adjacent sciences or larger explanatory systems. | Materials science (fracture, composition); physics and chemistry (heat, chemical alteration); engineering (tool efficiency); ecology (resource distribution); ethnography (analogous technologies); geology (stratigraphy); geography (spatial analysis); cognitive science (skill, learning, transmission). |
| 4. Method Layer | 4.1 Inquiry Design | Experimental Design | Structured plans for manipulating variables to test causal claims. | Replicating ancient manufacturing processes (knapping, firing, smelting); testing tool efficiency under controlled tasks; simulating taphonomic processes; reconstructing reduction sequences; controlled experiments on residue formation; experimentally creating breakage patterns; firing ceramics under varied temperatures/atmospheres; replicating architectural construction techniques. |
| | Observational Design | Systematic approaches for gathering non-manipulated data (surveys, field studies, natural experiments). | Systematic excavation; stratigraphic documentation; mapping spatial artifact distributions; observing contemporary/ethnographic craft production; documenting discard behavior; studying natural site-formation analogs; monitoring erosion or deposition processes; identifying raw-material sources; recording in-situ artifact associations. |
| 4.2 Testing & Validation | Hypothesis Testing | Procedures for evaluating whether evidence supports or contradicts specific claims. | Testing functional hypotheses via use-wear/residue analysis; validating chaîne opératoire sequences; testing stylistic-transmission predictions; evaluating reduction-intensity models; testing whether spatial clustering corresponds to activity areas; validating raw-material sourcing claims via compositional matches; evaluating taphonomic vs cultural deposition hypotheses; testing tool complexity vs efficiency. |
| | Replication | The requirement that results be independently reproducible under similar conditions. | Repeating compositional assays (XRF/ICP-MS); replicating use-wear results; independent re-coding of artifact typologies; reanalyzing spatial distributions with different grid sizes; repeating thermoluminescence/OSL dating; reconstructing reduction sequences via independent refit attempts; replicating experimental archaeology protocols. |
| 4.3 Inference & Evaluation | Statistical Inference | Rules for drawing conclusions from noisy or incomplete data. | PCA or cluster analysis on morphometrics; regression models linking tool form to function; Bayesian chronological modeling; spatial autocorrelation analysis; network analysis of refits; mixture models for artifact composition; taphonomic probability modeling; simulation-based inference for chaîne opératoire reconstruction. |
| | Model Comparison | Criteria (fit, simplicity, predictive accuracy, robustness) used to evaluate competing models. | Comparing functional vs stylistic interpretations; contrasting reduction sequences from different analysts; evaluating depositional-process models; testing multiple tool-efficiency models; comparing cultural-transmission models (neutral, biased, conformist); evaluating competing raw-material sourcing hypotheses; contrasting stratigraphic reconstructions. |
| 4.4 Error Management | Error Analysis | Identification and quantification of random and systematic errors. | Identifying measurement bias in morphometric data; detecting contamination in residue samples; accounting for post-depositional mixing; distinguishing natural vs cultural breakage; isolating analyst bias in typological coding; modeling uncertainty in dating; correcting spatial distortion from excavation methods; quantifying taphonomic alteration. |
| | Bias Control | Methods for minimizing subjective, instrumental, or procedural biases. | Multiple analysts for wear/residue/typology; blind coding of artifacts; standardized excavation protocols; cross-checking stratigraphic interpretation; calibration of instruments; balancing sample selection across contexts; using experimental reference collections; controlling for preservation bias across materials. |
| 4.5 Adjudication & Revision | Peer Scrutiny | Collective evaluation of claims through critique, review, and debate. | Reassessing artifact classifications; reinterpreting reduction sequences with refits; challenging functional claims with new experiments; reviewing stratigraphic assignments; replicating compositional-grouping analyses; triangulating interpretations with ethnographic analogs; resolving conflicting technological reconstructions. |
| | Theory Revision | Procedures for modifying, replacing, or discarding models based on new evidence. | Updating technological-evolution models with new evidence; revising chaîne opératoire frameworks; integrating new material-science findings; modifying style–function relationships; refining models of cultural transmission; revising taphonomic interpretations with experimental data; updating site-formation theory. |
| 4.6 Integrity Conditions | Transparency | Requirements to disclose methods, data, assumptions, and limitations. | Full disclosure of excavation context, sampling strategy, lab methods, instrument calibration, classification criteria, and analytical uncertainty; open-access artifact catalogs, GIS layers, and 3D scans where ethical; documentation of interpretive assumptions and limitations. |
| | Ethical Standards | Norms ensuring responsible conduct in experimentation, data handling, and publication. | Compliance with cultural heritage law; collaboration with descendant communities; respectful handling of material remains; avoiding extraction or removal without consent; ensuring conservation of artifacts and sites; transparent reporting; preventing misrepresentation of cultural technologies. |