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
Binford 1962 Archaeology As Anthropology for “archaeology as anthropology”.
Courbin 1988 What Is Archaeology. Scholars such as Binford (Binford 1972 Archaeological) have classified archaeology as a sub-discipline of anthropology since the 1970s, but this is not a consensus among archaeologists.
The theoretical concept of “culture” has undergone important discussions and developments in both history and archaeology - see Webster 2008 Culture History for a review of its role in archaeology.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2014]
Another discussion of the relationship between archaeology and cultural anthropology can be found in Earle 2008 Cultural Anthropology.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2014]
Archaeology as a distinct discipline of things with a unique point of view and contribution: Olsen &al 2012 Things and the website Symmetry.
– [ Laerke Recht, August 2014]
See also, Hawkes 1954 Theory And Method, “the ladder of inference in archaeology”.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, August 2014]
See also, Clarke 1973 Archaeology, “archaeology as archaeology”.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, August 2014]
Archaeology as not simply equal to excavation: Lucas 2001 Fieldwork.
– [ Laerke Recht, September 2014]
“Archaeology as Archaeology, the Great Tradition versus the Great Divide”; see: Renfrew 1980 Archaeology As Anthropology.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, September 2014]
Nash 1995 Deconstructing Archaeology. The role of archaeology in the Industrial Age.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
Read & Leblanc 1978 Descriptive Statements. 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]
Gumermanand & Phillips 1978 Archaeology Beyond Anthropology.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
Bogucki 1985 Theoretical Directions. The history of European prehistory.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
Essays in Edgeworth 2006 Ethnographies Of Archaeological take a different angle to the anthropology/archaeology discussion by applying ethnographic approaches to archaeological fieldwork.
– [ Laerke Recht, October 2014]
For some considerations concerning the definition of archaeology related to fragmentation, narratives and histories in different countries, see Carver & Lang 2013 E- Archaeology.
– [ Laerke Recht, January 2015]
The history of archaeology in different countries leads to a variety of practices and definitions. See e.g. Olivier 1999 Archaeological Funerary Assemblages and Jolles 1999 German Romantic Chronology for an examples from Germany.
– [ Laerke Recht, October 2015]
The interpretation and perception of time as central to archaeology, see e.g. papers in Lucas 2008 Time And Event; cf. also Buccellati G 2014 Threefold.
– [ Laerke Recht, October 2015]
Lucas characterises the difference between archaeology and anthropology as one of absence: Lucas 2010 Triangulating Absence.
– [ Laerke Recht, October 2015]
On the importance of excavation and chronology for archaeology: Obrien & Lyman 2002 Epistemological Nature Archaeological Units.
– [ Laerke Recht, October 2015]
Archaeology and anthropology: Childe 1946 Archaeology Anthropology; Gosden 1999 Anthropology And Archaeology; Lyman 2007 High Table Of Anthropology.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
The importance of the history of archaeology in different countries to understand definition, e.g. Diaz- Andreu 2008 Nineteenth- Century Archaeology; Harding 2009 European Archaeology; Renfrew 2007 Prehistory; Schuyler 1971 History American Archaeology.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
Cf. Mc Gimsey 2003 Four Fields for the four fields of archaeology; Rathje &al 2013 Archaeology In The Making.
– [ Laerke Recht, August 2016]
See Edgeworth 2011 Excavation, Cherry 2011 Digging, Carver 2011 Reflections 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]
2.2 A "critical" definition of archaeology
“Das Niveau einer Wissenschaft bestimmt sich daraus, wie weit sie einer Krisis ihrer Grundbegriffe fähig ist,” Heidegger 1927 Sein Und Zeit, p. 9.
Inference as part of archaeological practice, especially in comparison to anthropology/ethnography: Lucas 2010 Triangulating Absence.
– [ Laerke Recht, October 2015]
2.2.1 The structural framework
See Shanks & Tilley 1992 Re- Constructing.
– [August 2016]
2.2.3 Primary and secondary definitions
Cf. Gardin 1980 Archaeological, ch. 1.
– [July 2016]
Cf. Lucas 2010 Triangulating Absence.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
Inference, see Smith B 1977 Inference; Smith M E 2015 Better Arguments.
– [ Laerke Recht, August 2016]
2.3 Primary definition: inner-referential trace analysis of material cultural remains
For the relevance of allegory, see Radice 2010 Allegoria.
About “traces”, cf. Ben Jeffares, comment to Wynn 2002 Archaeology.
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 Ledetraad). The system was further developed by Worsaae 1843 Oldsager.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2013]
The development of cultural stratigraphy in the New World, see Browman & Givens 1996 Stratigraphic Excavation, and Lyman & O Brien 1999 Americanist Stratigraphic Excavation.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, August 2014]
For the physical structure of stratigraphy, see Harris 1975 Stratigraphic Sequence, Harris 1979 Archaeological Stratigraphy, also see Rowe 1991 Stratigraphy And Seriation, Walker 2002 Stratigraphy, Bollong 1994 Site Stratigraphy.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, August 2014]
Compare “emplacement” to the concept of displacement in Lucas 2001 Destruction.
– [ Laerke Recht, September 2014]
Observation, interpretation and personal experience of fieldwork: Lucas 2001 Fieldwork.
– [ Laerke Recht, September 2014]
On the nature of stratigraphic excavation, its history and geological origins: Obrien & Lyman 2002 Epistemological Nature Archaeological Units.
– [ Laerke Recht, October 2015]
2.3.1 The three levels of trace analysis
For trace analysis of objects, see the fundamental work by Wynn 2002 Archaeology.
Stratigraphy as central to archaeology: Roskams 2001 Excavation and Edgeworth 2011 Excavation; cf. Carver 2011 Reflections.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
2.4.1 Referentiality and temporal distance
Cf. papers in Hodder &al 1995 Interpreting.
– [July 2016]
2.4.2 Broken traditions
For the relevance of allegory, see Radice 2010 Allegoria.
On the ontological implications of the concept of a “dead” language see Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, § 34, p. 166.
Sagan &al 1978 Murmurs makes the reverse case of a broken tradition (ours) that projects itself towards potential (extraterrestrial) analysts.
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 Ideen (especially paragraph 32); also Moran 2000 Phenomenology, pp. 146-152.
– [ Laerke Recht, May 2013]
Reconstitution of the past and its possible caveats: Lucas 2005 Time.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2014]
The example of female figurines being used as a grand narrative in a specific modern agenda: Meskell 1995 Goddesses.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2014]
For a problematisation of creating a gap between past and present, see Olsen &al 2012 Things.
– [ Laerke Recht, August 2014]
Archaeology of the present, e.g. Harrison 2011 Archaeology Present; Horning 2011 Compelling Pasts; Lucas 2015 Archaeology And Contemporaneity.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
Cf. “absence” in Lucas 2010 Triangulating Absence.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
2.5.1 Grammar and hermeneutics
See Johnsen & Olsen 1992 Hermeneutics And Archaeology.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, July 2016]
2.5.2 The projection of meaning: archaeology as social science
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 1985 Reaction Against Analogy.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
Childe 1946 Archaeology Anthropology: 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]
Bogucki 1985 Theoretical Directions with regard to European studies.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
– [July 2016]
2.5.3 The appropriation of values: archaeology as humanism
On humanism: Davies 1997 Humanism.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
2.5.4 Archaeology and texts
An example of an integrative analysis of text, object and archaeological context: Postgate 1994 Text And Figure.
– [ Laerke Recht, March 2016]
2.6.1 The notion of grammar
Sokolowski 2008 Phenomenology: the significance of syntax.
A grammatical approach: Bloch 1949 Apologie Histoire.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
See Sini 2012 Sapere Dei Segni.
– [August 2016]
2.6.3 Grammar and codes
Relationship between excavation and archive: see Lucas 2001 Destruction.
– [ Laerke Recht, September 2014]
2.7.1 Formalization, digitalization, quantification
For various discussions of digital implementation, benefits and challenges, and theoretical background, see papers in Earl &al 2013 Archaeology Digital Era, especially Huggett 2013 Computer Applications, Costa &al 2013 Open Data, Corley 2013 Communication and Carver & Lang 2013 E- Archaeology.
– [ Laerke Recht, January 2015]
2.7.3 Grammatical underpinnings of a time-bound record
Discussion on how “publication” can lead to objectification and a disrupt between past and present: Lucas 2005 Time.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2014]
Another discussion on time in archaeology can be found in Olsen &al 2012 Things.
– [ Laerke Recht, August 2014]
2.8 A theory of excavation
For a discussion about the problems of excavation as a highly masculine activity with strict hierarchies, see Lucas 2001 Fieldwork, esp. pp. 6-8 and Gero 1996 Gendered Encounters.
– [ Laerke Recht, September 2014]
Compare the concept of deposition and emplacement to the discussion of “superposition” and stratigraphy in Obrien & Lyman 2002 Epistemological Nature Archaeological Units.
– [ Laerke Recht, October 2015]
2.8.1 The intellectual dimension of field work
But see e.g. Carver 2012 Archaeologize for a discussion about stratigraphy and theory.
– [ Laerke Recht, September 2012]
See Edgeworth 2011 Excavation, Carver 2011 Reflections, Cherry 2011 Digging 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]
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]
Examples of excavation manuals: Burke & Smith 2004 Field Handbook; Joukowsky 1980 Manual.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
Excavation as primary to archaeology, see e.g. Carman 2006 Social Practice; Moser 2007 Fieldwork.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
Theory in archaeology, e.g. Dark 1995 Theoretical.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
Theoretical dimension of excavation, Roskams 2001 Excavation.
– [ Laerke Recht, August 2016]
2.8.2 Observation and inference
Inference, cf. Fogelin 2007 Inference Best Explanation.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
Examples of excavation manuals: Burke & Smith 2004 Field Handbook; Joukowsky 1980 Manual.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
See Binford 1962 Archaeology As Anthropology; Sabloff 2005 Processual; Smith B 1977 Inference.
– [ Laerke Recht, August 2016]