Editing Systems theory in archaeology (section)

== Overview ==
Bertalanffy attempted to construct a [[general systems theory]] that would explain the interactions of different variables in a variety of [[systems]], no matter what those variables actually represented. A system was defined as a group of interacting parts and the relative influence of these parts followed rules which, once formulated could be used to describe the system no matter what the actual components were.<ref>(Trigger, 1989:303).</ref> 

Binford stated the problem in ''New Perspectives in Archaeology'', identifying the [[low range theory]], the [[middle range theory (archeology)|middle range theory]], and the [[upper range theory]]. 
* The low range theory could be used to explain a specific aspect of a specific [[culture]], such as the archaeology of [[Mesoamerica]]n [[agriculture]].  
* A middle range theory could describe any cultural system outside of its specific cultural context, for example, the archaeology of agriculture.  
* An upper range theory can explain any cultural system, independent of any specifics and regardless of the nature of the variables{{Clarify|date=November 2013}}.  
At the time Binford thought the middle range theory may be as far as archaeologists could ever go, but in the mid-1970s some believed that systems theory offered the definitive upper range theory.

Archaeologist [[Kent Flannery]] described the application of systems theory to archaeology in his paper ''Archaeological Systems Theory and Early Mesoamerica''.<ref> (Flannery, 1968).</ref>  Systems theory allowed archaeologists to treat the [[archaeological record]] in a completely new way. No longer did it matter what was being looked at, because it was being broken down to its elemental system components. Culture may be [[subjectivity|subjective]], but unless the model of systems theory is attacked in general and as long as it is treated mathematically the same way a retreating glacier is treated, the results were objective.  In other words, the problem of cultural bias no longer had any meaning, unless it was a problem with systems theory itself.  Culture was now just another natural system that could be explained in mathematical terms.