Research Discontinuity and the Development of Hyper-Short Chronology in Middle Atlantic Archaeology, 1920–1950

Abstract

Research discontinuity is problematic for many disciplines, but has posed severe challenges for archaeology practically from its inception. The Middle Atlantic region provides good examples of how archaeologists working for different institutions in the area have either met or failed to meet the omnipresent challenge of research discontinuity in the discipline. Once a line of research inquiry is dropped, it can be very difficult to revive. Even if this is the case, the earlier research conclusions can be disarticulated, reinterpreted, or treated as insignificant within new research frameworks. New archaeological approaches or findings are not necessarily undesirable in and of themselves, but scientific frameworks require continuity to build cumulative knowledge and can be easily broken and replaced by substituting alternative and competing non-scientific explanatory frameworks. New York archaeology in the early 20th century maintained scientific research continuity; archaeology in New Jersey and the Chesapeake area did not.