Many causes have been proposed for the transition to agriculture but how can archaeologists debate rival interpretations of the record with a seat-of-your-pants theoretical methodology? Truth is a concept that has been the subject of considerable thought and analysis by philosophers for millennia and is a conceptual resource that archaeologists can draw on. The aim of this thesis is twofold. Firstly, the aim is to study the epistemological criteria used in the formulation and assessment of archaeological knowledge: bringing new understanding of knowledge formation in archaeology and how to deal with competing interpretations of the past (specifically with political and ethical ramifications). The second aim is to assess these epistemological criteria and position them in light of the literature on philosophical theories of truth. The focus of this thesis is on the justification project which attempts to identify a characteristic which is possessed by most true propositions and not possessed by most false propositions. In other words, what it is that makes certain statements about the past ‘true’ or ‘not true’. The aim is to understand how archaeological claims about the past come to be made and against what grounds these claims are justified.
Three angles are used to answer the aims of this thesis. Firstly, looking at archaeological interpretation in the field, the case study of Çatalhöyük in Turkey is used to track interpretation from excavation through to publication. Secondly, looking at justification in larger syntheses of the past, different explanations for the emergence of agriculture in Britain are explored to understand how justification works at this level of archaeological interpretation, especially when dealing with multiple explanations. Finally, the ethical and political consequences of archaeological justification are discussed. Given the acceptance that there are different interpretations of the past beyond solely the archaeologists, how does justification work in archaeology when we include other interpretations of the past and when concerns shift away from reaching the most justified account of the past, to the practical ramifications of that knowledge? This thesis original and novel contribution is in answering these aims. In the next chapters it will be argued that archaeological justification works within a specific model of justification based on correspondence and coherence. Justification shifts as interpretation moves away from the archaeological record; there is a heavier reliance on abductive reasoning. Multiple interpretations are a product of abductive reasoning and due to the adoption of different theoretical stances. Archaeology fits within a pragmatist theory of truth showing that ethical and political issues are part of the process of justification.