How do archaeologists think? How do they use the scattered and often-fragmentary remains from the past—both historical and excavated—to create meaningful, sensible interpretations of human history? In Archaeological Thinking, Charles E. Orser Jr., provides a commonsense guide to applying critical thinking skills to archaeological questions and evidence.
Rather than critiquing and debunking specific cases of pseudo-archaeology or concentrating on archaeological theory, Orser considers the basics of scientific thinking, the use of logic and analogy, the meaning and context of facts, and the evaluation of source materials. He explains, concisely and accessibly, how archaeologists use these principles to create pictures of the past and teaches students to develop the skills needed to make equally reasoned interpretations.
Perhaps it's on me for misunderstanding what this book was going to be about, but I bought it thinking it would be about archaeology and history. Really, it's about logical fallacies, conspiracy theories, and how to pick them apart. Still useful information, but not what I was hoping for. I'll probably come back to this when I'm in the mood for what it's really trying to say, but at the moment I'm just disappointed it isn't really about archaeology or its related studies. It's about not being taken advantage of by conmen and rage baiters.