Editing Systems theory in archaeology (section)

== Criticism ==
Archaeologists found it was rarely possible to use systems theory in a rigorously mathematical way.  While it provided a framework for describing interactions in terms of types of feedback within the system, it was rarely possible to put the [[Numerical data|quantitative]] values that systems theory requires for full use, as Flannery himself admits.<ref> (Flannery, 1968:85)</ref> The result was that in the long run systems theory turned out to be more useful in describing change than in explaining it.<ref>(Trigger, 1989:308).</ref>

Systems theory also eventually went on to show that predictions that a high amount of cultural regularities would be found were certainly overly optimistic during the early stages of [[processual archaeology]],<ref> (Trigger, 1989:312).</ref> the opposite of what processual archaeologists were hoping it would be able to do with systems theory.  However, systems theory is still used to describe how variables inside a cultural system can interact.

Systems theory, at least, was important in the rise of processual archaeology and was a call against culture-historical methods of past generations. It held argument that one could contemplate the past impartially and sidestep pitfalls through rigour.