CRITIQUE-OF-AR.NET/NOTES/15.htm – Version 1, August 2017.

Critique of Archaeological Reason
3. Notes

15. The critical approach

15.1 Reason and "reasons"
15.2 Pure and impure reason
15.3 Critique, "critical theory," metaphysics
15.4 Archaeological data
15.5 Archaeological reason
15.6 A critique of archaeological reason
15.7 A critical approach to archaeology
15.8 Referential levels
15.9 Observation and degrees of inference
15.10 A critical approach to stratigraphy
      15.10.1 Excavation
      15.10.2 Emplacement
      15.10.3 Deposition
      15.10.4 Stratigraphy
      15.10.5 Other stratigraphies
15.11 A critical approach typology
      15.11.1 The structuring principle
      15.11.2 The structured whole
      15.11.3 The meeting of two reasons: typology and classification
      15.11.4 Classes, types and allotypes
      15.11.5 Inventories, assemblages and sampling
      15.11.6 A note on terminology
      15.11.7 Patterned singularity
      15.11.8 Synchrony and diachrony
      15.11.9 Patterns of production
15.12 A critical approach to interpretation
      15.12.1 The nature of the evidence
      15.12.2 An "uncritical" theory of archaeology
      15.12.3 The merits of "uncritical theory"
      15.12.4 Interpretation and theory of interpretation
15.13 Archaeology and philosophy
15.14 Metaarchaeology

15.1 Reason and "reasons"

a.	See in general the excerpts under Sartre
b.	Sartre 1960 Critique: the comment on the nature of a dialectical reason is on p. 10.
c.	On Sartre and Dilthey see Bulhof 1980 Wilhelm Dilthey; Stewart 2011 "Sartre, Aron"
d.	Rodi 2003. – [August 2016]

15.2 Pure and impure reason

a.	The expression "Critique of impure reason" has become rather popular, but it is used generically, in a metaphorical sense, which testifies to the impact of Kant's title. Here are some recent pertinent titles: McCarthy 1990 "Impure Reason"; Schindler 2008 Impure Reason; Bauer et al. 2010 Lukács; Hörisch 2011 Tauschen
b.	The source and the subject, analogical inference: Wylie 1985b – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
c.	"Pure" dialectical reason in Sartre: Sartre 1960. – [August 2016]

15.3 Critique, "critical theory," metaphysics

a.	For the concept of an "archaeological metaphysics" see Clarke 1973 "Loss" p. 12f.; Patrik 1985 "Record" pp. 27f, 31f., 35f., 43f., 48f.
b.	Ricoeur 1963 "Temporalité." What Ricoeur says of Levi-Strauss, whose system he defines as “Kantism without a transcendental subject,” may be said, paradoxically, to apply to Kant himself.
c.	Urban 1950 "Metaphysics" discusses the topic from an ontological point of view, different from the one I here attribute to Kant.
d.	For de Saussure's "linguistics of speech" see Harris 1987 "Reading," p. 20.
e.	For Critical Theory in Archaeology (an impact from the Frankfurt School) and recursivity (active quality of material culture): Potter 1992
f.	Inductive confirmation: Smith 1977
g.	Critical theory in philosophy: Bohman 2015; Rush 2004; Tyson 2014. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
h.	Critique and critical theory: Holly 1996. – [July 2016]

15.4 Archaeological data

a.	For de Saussure's insistence on the volatile nature of linguistic data see de Saussure 1967 Cours and Harris 1987 Commentary.
b.	On epic memory see Foley 1991 Immanent Art
c.	The source and the subject, analogical inference: Wylie 1985b – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
d.	Archaeological data and semiotics: Dallas 2015. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
e.	Memory: Jones 2007. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
f.	Ethnoarchaeology: Kramer 1979. – [July 2016]

15.5 Archaeological reason

a.	Panofsky 1955 Meaning; Excerpts: Panofsky
b.	Fusion of horizons: Gadamer 1986. – [July 2016]

15.6 A critique of archaeological reason

a.	For hermeneutical philosophy see Figal 2006 Gegenständlichkeit.
b.	On the interconnectedness between archaeology and potential encounters with extraterrestrial aliens see Buccellati 2006 "Archaeologist on Mars"
c.	Application of hermeneutics in archaeology, see e.g. Johnsen and Olsen 1992 – [Esmeralda Agolli, August 2014]
d.	Application of evolutionary theory in the explanation of archaeological data see e.g. Lyman and O'Brien 1998 – [Esmeralda Agolli, September 2014]
e.	Anthropology and Archaeology as complementary fields Childe 1946 – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
f.	Exterior factors in Archaeology: Trigger 1984 – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
g.	It goes without saying that pertinent science fiction titles are innumerable. As prime examples one may mention in particular the episode of Darmok from the television series Star Trek, and Contact by Carl Sagan.
h.	Sagan 1978 Murmurs addresses specifically the issue of a potential extraterrestrial confrontation, in a reverse direction: it purports to offer a link to external analysts who would have to approach our tradition from the outside [Sagan does not make reference to the commonality that this would have with archaeology].

15.7 A critical approach to archaeology

a.	See also Shanks & Tilley 1992. – [August 2016]

15.9 Observation and degrees of inference

a.	The use of inference is to be found in every archaeological report. For special attention to pertinent theoretical or methodological issues see, e. g., Hawkes 1954; Renfrew 1994 "Cognitive archaeology"; Guidi 2002. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

15.10.1 Excavation

a.	Cf. Barker 1982 and Carandini 2000. – [July 2016]

15.10.2 Emplacement

a.	On language as reification of thought and writing as reification of thought in the form of an extrasomatic extension of language see Buccellati 2013 Origini
b.	On writing see Derrida 1967 Grammatologie

15.10.3 Deposition

a.	On the level of detail that may go into a proper description of emplacement as distinct from deposition, and on the way in which it must be implemented, see the principles stated in the relevant section of GAR, with examples from the Urkesh Global Record.

15.10.4 Stratigraphy

a.	On the depositional verbs as a set of rules for the correlation between space and time see the section on contact association in my Grammar.
b.	Laws of stratigraphy: Carver 2012; O'Brien & Lyman 2002; Rowe 1991. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
c.	Emplacement and deposition, cf. Hodder & Hutson 2003. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
d.	For site formation as a special type of stratigraphy, see Schiffer 1987. – [August 2016]

15.10.5 Other stratigraphies

a.	See Hawkes 1954; Harris 1975; Harris 1979b; Villa 1982; Rowe 1991; Bollong 1994; Browman & Givens 1996; Lyman and O'Brien 1999; Walker 2002
b.	Stratigraphy in geology, see e.g. Catuneanu 2006; Herz & Garrison 1997. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
c.	Object biographies, see e.g. Mytum 2003, Gosden & Marshall 1999. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
d.	Analysis of architecture, e.g. Steadman 1996; Vila et al. 2003. – [Laerke Recht, August 2016]

15.11.1 The structuring principle

a.	On the nature of stationary vs. movable elements see section 3.2 of my digital book on the Grammar of the Archaeological Record

15.11.2 The structured whole

The important notion of "traditional referentiality" has been introduced by Foley 1991 Immanent Art: he uses it in function of the special setting of folk tradition and its implications for an understanding of oral (or orally based) literary traditions. The concept is quite pertinent to my current argument.

15.11.3 The meeting of two reasons: typology and classification

a.	For the concept of typology as referring to specific assemblages see Becher et al. 2004 Typologies; Hauser 2007 Reading Figurines.
b.	The definition of types according to Idealistic Morphology Trienes 1989 – [Esmeralda Agolli, September 2014]
c.	The the scientific formation of the concept see: Adams & Adams 1987 – [Esmeralda Agolli, September 2014]
d.	The implications of quantification in classification see: Ammerman 1992 – [Esmeralda Agolli, September 2014]
e.	The philosophical concepts that define function/s see: Wright 1972 – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
f.	Cf. Adams & Adams 2007 – [July 2016]
g.	On the eidetic reduction in Husserl (e.g. 1913), see: Beyer 2015, Ch. 2. Cf. his notion of phenomenological bracketing. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
h.	On artistic intention: Livingston 2005. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
i.	Phenomenology, see e.g. Moran 2000; Sokolowski 2000. – [Laerke Recht, August 2016]

15.11.7 Patterned singularity

a.	On the importance of the difference within patterns see Lévi-Strauss, in his criticism of Propp.

15.11.8 Synchrony and diachrony

a.	Wölfflin 1915 discusses at length the question of continuity within development.

15.12.1 The nature of the evidence

a.	Cf. Carandini 2000, pp. 249-257. – [July 2016]

15.12.4 Interpretation and theory of interpretation

a.	On the relationship between factuality, history and historiography, see Buccellati 2010 Ethnicity, pp. 82-84
b.	New Archaeology: Browman & Givens 1996; Renfrew 1980; cf. Gibbon 1989. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
c.	Theory in general: Yoffee & Sherratt 1993. – [August 2016]

15.13 Archaeology and philosophy

a.	See in general: Levin 1976 Philosophy and Archaeology; Smith 1977 Philosophy and Archaeology; Gardin 1980 Archaeological Constructs; Salmon 1982 Archaeology and Philosophy; Wylie 1985 Between Philosophy and Archaeology; Johnsen and Olsen 1992 "Hermeneutics and Archaeology"; Giannichedda 2002 Archeologia teorica; Wylie 2002 Thinking from Things.
b.	Clifford Brown 2010 "Metaarchaeology": archaeologists have developed a sense of inferiority. As argued in CAR, this can be attributed to the inability to focus on what should be the properly archaeological nature of the inquiry.
c.	Dunnell 1982. The paper elucidates important matters of the philosophical and epistemological emphasis. Dunnell succeeds in bringing a cohesive conceptual framework which delineates efficiently the theoretical focus of the discipline. However he follows rather a schematic approach and misses important matters regarding the complex character of the discipline focused largely on the multidimensional changes over time. Even though the evolutionary perspective on the understanding of the past is widely addressed, key aspects like the rate of change or change over time are rather treated simplicity. – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
d.	See also Salmon 1978 The relevance of General System Theory to Archaeology. – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
e.	Foucault 1972 Philosophy of Knowledge – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
f.	Read & LeBlanc 1978 The nature of the archaeological theory. – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
g.	See Keesing 1972: Cognition Keesing 1974: theories of culture. – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
h.	Stratigraphy and theory: Carver 2012; Hodder & Hutson 2003. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
i.	Philosophical dimension: Dallas 2015; Hodder et al. 1995; Hodder 2001; Johnson 2006; Krieger 2006; O'Brien & Lyman 2002b; Tilley 1990b. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

15.14 Metaarchaeology

a.	Embree 1992 Metaarchaeology
b.	Klejn 2001 Meta-archaeology
c.	Clifford Brown 2010 "Metaarchaeology"

Critique of Archaeological Reason 3. Notes