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"
See in general the excerpts under Sartre 1960 Critique.
Sartre 1960 Critique: the comment on the nature of a dialectical reason is on p. 10.
On Sartre and Dilthey see Bulhof 1980 Wilhelm; Stewart Iain 2011 Sartre.
– [August 2016]
15.2 Pure and impure reason
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: Mc Carthy Thomas 1990 Critique; Schindler 2008 Plato; Bauer &al 2010 Georg; Hoerisch 1992 Tauschen.
The source and the subject, analogical inference: Wylie 1985 Reaction Against Analogy.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
“Pure” dialectical reason in Sartre: Sartre 1960 Critique.
– [August 2016]
15.3 Critique, "critical theory," metaphysics
For the concept of an “archaeological metaphysics” see Clarke 1973 Archaeology, p. 12f.; Patrik 1985 Is There, pp. 27f, 31f., 35f., 43f., 48f.
Ricoeur 1963 Symbole Et Temporalite. 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.
Urban 1950 Metaphysics And History discusses the topic from an ontological point of view, different from the one I here attribute to Kant.
For de Saussure’s “linguistics of speech” see Harris R 1987 Reading Saussure, p. 20.
For Critical Theory in Archaeology (an impact from the Frankfurt School) and recursivity (active quality of material culture): Potter 1992 Archaeology.
Inductive confirmation: Smith B 1977 Inference.
Critical theory in philosophy: Bohman 2015 Critical Theory; Rush 2004 Critical Theory; Tyson 2014 Critical Theory Today.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
Critique and critical theory: Holly Michael Ann 1996 Past.
– [July 2016]
15.4 Archaeological data
For de Saussure’s insistence on the volatile nature of linguistic data see Saussure 1967 Cours and Harris R 1987 Reading Saussure.
On epic memory see Foley 1991 Immanent.
The source and the subject, analogical inference: Wylie 1985 Reaction Against Analogy.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
Archaeological data and semiotics: Dallas 2015 Gardin Archaeological Data.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
Memory: Jones 2007 Memory And Material Culture.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
Ethnoarchaeology: Kramer 1979 Ethnoarchaeology.
– [July 2016]
15.5 Archaeological reason
Panofsky 1955 Meaning; see excerpts: Panofsky.
Fusion of horizons: Gadamer 1976 Philosophical.
– [July 2016]
15.6 A critique of archaeological reason
For hermeneutical philosophy see Figal 2006 Gegenstandlichkeit.
On the interconnectedness between archaeology and potential encounters with extraterrestrial aliens see Buccellati G 2006 Mars.
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.
Sagan &al 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].
Application of hermeneutics in archaeology, see e.g. Johnsen & Olsen 1992 Hermeneutics And Archaeology.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, August 2014]
Application of evolutionary theory in the explanation of archaeological data see e.g. Lyman & O Brien 1998 Evolutionary Archaeology.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, September 2014]
Anthropology and archaeology as complementary fields: Childe 1946 Archaeology Anthropology.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
Exterior factors in archaeology: Trigger 1984 Alternative Archaeologies.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
15.7 A critical approach to archaeology
See also Shanks & Tilley 1992 Re- Constructing.
– [August 2016]
15.9 Observation and degrees of inference
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 Theory And Method; Renfrew 1994 Cognitive; Guidi 2002 Comunita Di Villaggio.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
15.10.1 Excavation
Cf. Barker P 1982 Techniques and Carandini 2000 Storie.
– [July 2016]
15.10.2 Emplacement
On language as reification of thought and writing as reification of thought in the form of an extrasomatic extension of language see Buccellati G 2013 Origini.
On writing see Derrida 1967grammatologie.
15.10.3 Deposition
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 G A R, with examples from the Urkesh Global Record.
15.10.4 Stratigraphy
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.
Laws of stratigraphy: Carver 2012 Archaeologize; Obrien & Lyman 2002 Seriation Stratigraphy And Index Fossils; Rowe 1991 Stratigraphy And Seriation.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
Emplacement and deposition, cf. Hodder & Hutson 2003 Reading The Past; cf. also the dedicated theme “Emplacement and context”.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
For site formation as a special type of stratigraphy, see Schiffer 1987 Formation.
– [August 2016]
15.10.5 Other stratigraphies
See Hawkes 1954 Theory And Method; Harris 1975 Stratigraphic Sequence; Harris 1979 Principles; Villa 1982 Site Formation Processes; Rowe 1991 Stratigraphy And Seriation; Bollong 1994 Site Stratigraphy; Browman & Givens 1996 Stratigraphic Excavation; Lyman & O Brien 1999 Americanist Stratigraphic Excavation; Walker 2002 Stratigraphy.
Stratigraphy in geology, see e.g. Catuneanu 2006 Sequence Stratigraphy; Herz & Garrison 1997 Geological Methods.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
Object biographies, see e.g. Mytum 2003 Artefact Biography, Gosden & Marshall 1999 Cultural Biography Of Objects.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
Analysis of architecture, e.g. Steadman 1996 Archaeology Of Architecture; Vila &al 2003 Archaeotecture.
– [ Laerke Recht, August 2016]
15.11.1 The structuring principle
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: 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
For the concept of typology as referring to specific assemblages see Becher & Becher 2004 Typologies; Hauser Rick 2007 Reading.
The definition of types according to “idealistic morphology”: Trienes 1989 Type Concept.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, September 2014]
The scientific formation of the concept see: Adams & Adams 1987 Concept.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, September 2014]
The implications of quantification in classification see: Ammerman 1992 Quantitative Archaeology.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, September 2014]
The philosophical concepts that define function/s see: Wright 1972 Functions.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
Cf. Adams & Adams 2007 Artifact.
– [July 2016]
On the eidetic reduction in Husserl (e.g. Husserl 1913 Ideen), see: Beyer 2015 Edmund Husserl, Ch. 2. Cf. his notion of phenomenological bracketing.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
On artistic intention: Livingston 2005 Art And Intention.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
Phenomenology, see e.g. Moran 2000 Phenomenology; Sokolowski 2000 Introduction.
– [ Laerke Recht, August 2016]
15.11.7 Patterned singularity
On the importance of the difference within patterns see Levi- Strauss 1960 Structure And Form, in his criticism of Propp.
15.11.8 Synchrony and diachrony
Woelfflin 1915 Kunstgeschichtliche discusses at length the question of continuity within development.
15.12 A critical approach to interpretation
Critical Theory in Archaeology, an impact from the Frankfurt School, recursivity (active quality of material culture) see: Potter 1992 Archaeology.
15.12.1 The nature of the evidence
Cf. Carandini 2000 Storie, pp. 249-257.
– [July 2016]
15.12.4 Interpretation and theory of interpretation
On the relationship between factuality, history and historiography, see Buccellati G 2010 Ethnicity, pp. 82-84.
New Archaeology: Browman & Givens 1996 Stratigraphic Excavation; Renfrew 1980 Archaeology As Anthropology; cf. Gibbon Guy 1989 Explanation.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
Theory in general: Yoffee & Sherratt 1993 Archaeological.
– [August 2016]
15.13 Archaeology and philosophy
See in general: Levin 1976 Functions To Objects; Smith B 1977 Inference; Gardin 1980 Archaeological; Salmon 1982 Philosophy And Archaeology; Wylie 1985 Reaction Against Analogy; Johnsen & Olsen 1992 Hermeneutics And Archaeology; Giannichedda 2002 Archeologia Teorica; Wylie 2002 Thinking From Things.
Clifford Brown Clifford 2010 Reflections: archaeologists have developed a sense of inferiority. As argued in Buccellati G 2017 C A R, this can be attributed to the inability to focus on what should be the properly archaeological nature of the inquiry.
Dunnell 1982 Dilemma. 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]
See also Salmon 1978 Systems Theory.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
Foucault 1972 Archaeology Of Knowledge.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
Read & Leblanc 1978 Descriptive Statements.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
See Keesing R 1972 Paradigms Lost: cognition; Keesing R 1974 Theories Of Culture: theories of culture.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
Stratigraphy and theory: Carver 2012 Archaeologize; Hodder & Hutson 2003 Reading The Past.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
Philosophical dimension: Dallas 2015 Gardin Archaeological Data; Hodder &al 1995 Interpreting; Hodder 2001 Archaeological Theory Today; Johnson 2006 Theoretical Archaeology; Krieger W 2006 Philosophy Of Archaeology; Obrien & Lyman 2002 Epistemological Nature Archaeological Units; Tilley 1990 Reading.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]