CRITIQUE-OF-AR.NET/NOTES/02.htm – Version 1, August 2017.

Critique of Archaeological Reason
3. Notes

2. Archaeology and grammar

2.1 The uniqueness of the discipline: archaeology as archaeology
2.2 A "critical" definition of archaeology
      2.2.1 The structural framework
      2.2.2 Methodology, method, implementation
      2.2.3 Primary and secondary definitions
2.3 Primary definition: inner-referential trace analysis of material cultural remains
      2.3.1 The three levels of trace analysis
      2.3.2 Distinctiveness of archaeology in terms of the primary definition
2.4 Secondary definition: extra-referential analysis of material cultural remains
      2.4.1 Referentiality and temporal distance
      2.4.2 Broken traditions
2.5 Approaches to the two definitions
      2.5.1 Grammar and hermeneutics
      2.5.2 The projection of meaning: archaeology as social science
      2.5.3 The appropriation of values: archaeology as humanism
      2.5.4 Archaeology and texts
2.6 Grammar
      2.6.1 The notion of grammar
      2.6.2 Economy and power
      2.6.3 Grammar and codes
      2.6.4 Shape grammar and grammar of space
2.7 The impact of grammar
      2.7.1 Formalization, digitalization, quantification
      2.7.2 Capillarity and comprehensiveness
      2.7.3 Grammatical underpinnings of a time-bound record
2.8 A theory of excavation
      2.8.1 The intellectual dimension of field work
      2.8.2 Observation and inference
      2.8.3 Structural archaeology


2.1 The uniqueness of the discipline: archaeology as archaeology

a.Binford 1962 for "archaeology as anthropology"
b.Courbin 1988 Scholars such as Binford (1972, 1988) have classified archaeology as a sub-discipline of anthropology since the 1970s, but this is not a consensus among archaeologists
c.Archaeology as a distinct discipline of things with a unique point of view and contribution: Olsen et al. 2012 and the website Symmetrical Archaeology. – [Laerke Recht, August 2014]
d.The theoretical concept of 'culture' has undergone important discussions and developments in both history and archaeology - see Webster 2008 for a review of its role in archaeology. – [Laerke Recht, July 2014]
e.Another discussion of the relationship between archaeology and cultural anthropology can be found in Earle 2008. – [Laerke Recht, July 2014]
f. See also, Hawkes 1954, "the ladder of inference in archaeology". – [Esmeralda Agolli, August 2014]
g. See also, Clarke 1973, "archaeology as archaeology". – [Esmeralda Agolli, August 2014]
h. Archaeology as not simply equal to excavation: Lucas 2001b. – [Laerke Recht, September 2014]
i. Archaeology as Archaeology, the Great Tradition versus the Great Divide see: Renfrew 1980. – [Esmeralda Agolli, September 2014]
j.Nash 1995 The role of archaeology in the Industrial Age. – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
k.Read and LeBlanc 1978 How to perceive theory and arguments in archaeology. Three main dimensions: confirmation of descriptive statements, confimation of covering laws, the covering-law model of explanation. – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
l.Gumerman and Phillips 1978 Archaeology as archaeology – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
m.Bogucki 1985 The history of European prehistory – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
n.Essays in Edgeworth 2006 take a different angle to the anthropology/archaeology discussion by applying ethnographic approaches to archaeological fieldwork. – [Laerke Recht, October 2014]
o.For some considerations concerning the definition of archaeology related to fragmentation, narratives and histories in different countries, see Carver and Lang 2013. – [Laerke Recht, January 2015]
p.The history of archaeology in different countries leads to a variety of practices and definitions. See e.g. Olivier 1999 and Jolles 1999 for an examples from Germany. – [Laerke Recht, October 2015]
q.The interpretation and perception of time as central to archaeology, see e.g. papers in Murray 1999a, Lucas 2008. – [Laerke Recht, October 2015]
r.Lucas characterises the difference between archaeology and anthropology as one of absence: Lucas 2010. – [Laerke Recht, October 2015]
s.On the importance of excavation and chronology for archaeology: O'Brien and Lyman 2002. – [Laerke Recht, October 2015]
t.Archaeology and anthropology: Childe 1946; Gosden 1999; Lyman 2007. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
u.The importance of the history of archaeology in different countries to understand definition, e.g. Díaz-Andreu 2008; Harding 2009; Renfrew 2007; Schuyler 1971. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
v.Cf. McGimsey 2003 for the four fields of archaeology; Rathje et al. 2013. – [Laerke Recht, August 2016]
w.See Edgeworth 2011, Cherry 2011, Carver 2011 and other papers in same issue of Archaeological Dialogues for arguments for and against carrying out excavation and excavation's role in archaeology, both academic and commercial, and in the public view.. – [Laerke Recht, August 2016]
     Back to top

2.2 A "critical" definition of archaeology

a."Das Niveau einer Wissenschaft bestimmt sich daraus, wie weit sie einer Krisis ihrer Grundbegriffe fähig ist," Heidegger 1927, §, p. 9.
b.Inference as part of archaeological practice, especially in comparison to anthropology/ethnography: Lucas 2010. – [Laerke Recht, October 2015]
     Back to top
2.2.1 The structural framework
a.See Shanks & Tilley 1992.
     Back to top
2.2.3 Primary and secondary definitions
a.Cf. Gardin 1980, ch. 1.
b.Cf. Lucas 2010. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
c.Inference, see Smith 1977; Smith 2015. – [Laerke Recht, August 2016]
     Back to top

2.3 Primary definition: inner-referential trace analysis of material cultural remains

a.The importance of the association of objects within closed contexts was already noted by Christian Jürgensen Thomsen, who also first presented the three-phase system of Stone-Bronze-Iron Ages in chronological order (Thomsen 1836). The system was further developed by Worsaae 1843 – [Laerke Recht, July 2013]
b.For the relevance of allegory, see Radice 2010 "Allegoria"
c.The development of cultural stratigraphy in the New World, see Browman & Givens 1996, and Lyman and O'Brien 1999. – [Esmeralda Agolli, August 2014]
d.For the physical structure of stratigraphy, see Harris 1975, 1979b "Stratigraphy", also see Rowe 1991, Walker 2002, Bollong 1994. – [Esmeralda Agolli, August 2014]
e.Compare 'emplacement' to the concept of displacement in Lucas 2001a – [Laerke Recht, September 2014]
f.Observation, interpretation and personal experience of fieldwork: Lucas 2001b – [Laerke Recht, September 2014]
g.About traces, cf. Ben Jeffares, comment to Wynn 2002
h.On the nature of stratigraphic excavation, its history and geological origins: O'Brien and Lyman 2002. – [Laerke Recht, October 2015]
     Back to top
2.3.1 The three levels of trace analysis
a.For trace analysis of objects, see the fundamental work by Wynn 2002.
b.Stratigraphy as central to archaeology: Roskams 2001 and Edgeworth 2011; cf. Carver 2011. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
     Back to top
2.4.1 Referentiality and temporal distance
a.Cf. papers in Hodder et al. 1995. – [July 2016]
     Back to top
2.4.2 Broken traditions
a.The concept of phenomenological epoché is part of Edmund Husserl's phenomenology, developed throughout his works, involving a suspension or 'bracketing' of the question of reality in order to understand the workings of consciousness. See Husserl 1913 (especially paragraph 32); also Moran 2000, pp. 146-152. – [Laerke Recht, May 2013]
b.For the relevance of allegory, see Radice 2010 "Allegoria"
c.Reconstruction/reconstitution of the past and its possible caveats: Lucas 2005 – [Laerke Recht, July 2014]
d.The example of female figurines being used as a grand narrative in a specific modern agenda: Meskell 1995 – [Laerke Recht, July 2014]
e.For a problematisation of creating a gap between past and present, see Olsen et al. 2012 – [Laerke Recht, August 2014]
f.On the ontological implications of the concept of a "dead" language see Heidegger, Sein und Zeit § 34, p. 166.
g.Sagan 1978 Murmurs makes the reverse case of a broken tradition (ours) that projects itself towards potential (extraterrestrial) analysts.
h.Archaeology of the present, e.g. Harrison 2011; Horning 2011; Lucas 2015. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
i.Cf. "absence" in Lucas 2010. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
     Back to top
2.5.1 Grammar and hermeneutics
a.See Johnsen & Olsen 1992. – [Esmeralda Agolli, July 2016]
     Back to top
2.5.2 The projection of meaning: archaeology as social science
a.Scholars discuss and debate the proper use of analogy in tyring to understand the archaeological record. Many works champion the benefis of consulting models and patterns and suggest better ways to go about doing this. For a constructive critique of Ascher see Wylie 1985b – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
b.Childe 1946: Childe's enthusiasm for the unilinear americanist evolutionary theory and its impact to archaeology. An approach based on the terms of the social evolution and Marxism. – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
c.Bogucki 1985 with regard to European studies – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
d.Cf. Buccellati 2006 "Mars". – [July 2016]
     Back to top
2.5.3 The appropriation of values: archaeology as humanism
a.On humanism: Davies 1997 – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
     Back to top
2.5.4 Archaeology and texts
a.An example of an integrative analysis of text, object and archaeological context: Postgate 1994 – [Laerke Recht, March 2016]
     Back to top
2.6.1 The notion of grammar
a.Sokolowski 2008: the significance of syntax.
b.A grammatical approach: Bloch 1949 – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
c.See Sini 2012. – [August 2016]
     Back to top
2.6.3 Grammar and codes
a.Relationship between excavation and archive: see Lucas 2001a – [Laerke Recht, September 2014]
     Back to top
2.7.1 Formalization, digitalization, quantification
a.For various discussions of digital implementation, benefits and challenges, and theoretical background, see papers in Earl et al. 2013, especially Huggett 2013, Costa et al. 2013, Corley 2013 and Carver and Lang 2013. – [Laerke Recht, January 2015]
     Back to top
2.7.3 Grammatical underpinnings of a time-bound record
a.Discussion on how 'publication' can lead to objectification and a disrupt between past and present: Lucas 2005 – [Laerke Recht, July 2014]
b.Another discussion on time in archaeology can be found in Olsen et al. 2012 – [Laerke Recht, August 2014]
     Back to top

2.8 A theory of excavation

a.For a discussion about the problems of excavation as a highly masculine activity with strict hierarchies, see Lucas 2001b, esp. pp. 6-8 and Gero 1996. – [Laerke Recht, September 2014]
b.Compare the concept of deposition and emplacement to the discussion of 'superposition' and stratigraphy in O'Brien and Lyman 2002. – [Laerke Recht, October 2015]
     Back to top
2.8.1 The intellectual dimension of field work
a.For a generic and cohesive interpretation of the archaeological record see Childe. Childe manages to integrate cogently the most notable achievements of man. However his unilinear approach to the evolution of humankind may result problematic if such interpretations are attempted to be validated with regard to a particular archaeological context and time. It is somehow difficult to adapt anything within his scheme. On the other hand, time has brought to light a significant diversity of social and cultural evolution so that unified interpretations of this kind must be taken seriously. – [Esmeralda Agolli, September 2014]
b.But see e.g. Carver 2012 for a discussion about stratigraphy and theory. – [Laerke Recht, September 2012]
c.See Edgeworth 2011, Carver 2011, Cherry 2011 and other papers in the same issue of Archaeological Dialogues for arguments for and against carrying out excavation and excavation's role in archaeology, both academic and commercial, and in the public view – [Laerke Recht, September 2012]
d.Examples of excavation manuals: Burke & Smith 2004; Joukowsky 1980. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
e.Excavation as primary to archaeology, see e.g. Carman 2006; Moser 2007. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
f.Theory in archaeology, e.g. Dark 1995. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
g.Theoretical dimension of excavation, Roskams 2001. – [Laerke Recht, August 2016]
     Back to top
2.8.2 Observation and inference
a.See Binford 1962; Sabloff 2005; Smith 1977. – [Laerke Recht, August 2016]
b.Inference, cf. Fogelin 2007. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
c.Examples of excavation manuals: Burke & Smith 2004; Joukowsky 1980. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
     Back to top