{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024645257654966394, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002987303958177745, 'mean_word_length': 5.568627450980392, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Science, data, and case-studies under the Third Science Revolution: some theoretical considerations

The Third Science Revolution described by Kristian Kristiansen (2014) has been openly embraced and is currently underway in archaeology. It has brought considerable improvement in terms of scientific methods and approaches, but at the same time, it brings with it the risk of transforming archaeology into something that is methodologically uniform, inflexible, and oversimplified, or in other words, a methodologically monistic discipline. This is particularly evident when it comes to Big Data: the Third Science Revolution has inaugurated a new understanding of data, one that reduces archaeological reality exclusively to those elements that are quantifiable. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that archaeology needs to go beyond Big Data, and the Third Science revolution in general, and embody qualitative research. This can be done by incorporating methods and theories from history and anthropology that contextualize the purposeful character of past human action. This requires (re)embracing case-study research, but also recognizing a meaning of ‘case-study’ that has been largely ignored: as a paradigmatic example of a Zeitgeist - a context where different institutions, power relations, and ideologies are all entwined.