General notes on Chapter 16
16.1 The question of meaning
16.2 The premise of grammar
16.2.1 Grammar and meaning
16.2.2 Distributional and structural analysis
16.2.3 The urgency of grammar
16.3 Semiotics within hermeneutics
16.3.1 Mending the brokenness: semiotics for a broken tradition
16.3.2 Distribution
16.3.3 Linking
16.3.4 The other side of semiotics: perceptual analysis
16.3.5 Reconstituting perception
16.4 The possibility of meaning
16.4.1 Presuppositions
16.4.2 Clustering
16.4.3 The structural trigger
16.4.4 The hermeneutic risk
16.4.5 Potential grammaticalization
16.4.6 The coherence of the system
16.5 The retrieval of consciousness: cognitive archaeology
16.6 The two hermeneutics
16.6.1 Hermeneutics as invention
16.6.2 Hermeneutics as appropriation
16.6.3 Hermeneutics of broken traditions
16.7 Archaeology and history
16.8 A pre-linguistic hermeneutics
16.8.1 Para-perceptual communication
16.8.2 The autonomy of the referent
16.8.3 Levels of signification
16.9 Academic alignments and intellectual domains
16.9.1 Epoché, emphathy, assent
16.9.2 Social sciences and the humanities
16.9.3 "Undiseased by hypotheis": the humanities and theory
16.9.4 Culture and experience: mediation of patterns and immediacy of fruition
General notes on Chapter 16
The topics developed in this chapter were the subject of an intensive research project held at the Catholic University of Milan in 2014-2015.
16.1 The question of meaning
Dilthey: see Rodi 1998 Strukturzusammenhang.
Clifford: Brown Clifford 2010 Reflections.
Hermeneutics: Hodder &al 1995 Interpreting.
– [July 2016]
Cf. Schiffer & Skibo 2008 People.
– [August 2016]
16.2.1 Grammar and meaning
Dilthey: see Rodi 1998 Strukturzusammenhang.
Critical archaeology, see: Potter 1992 Archaeology
European prehistory see: Bogucki 1985 Theoretical Directions.
Morphology see: Propp 1958 Morphology Folktale.
An interesting study by Anawalt 1996 Aztec correlates a study of formal patterns with the explicit codification given by early outside observers.
16.2.2 Distributional and structural analysis
How to derive interpretations from analogical inference Wylie 1985 Reaction Against Analogy.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
Read & Leblanc 1978 Descriptive Statements: analysis on site pattern, distribution of population (see appendix).
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
Bogucki 1985 Theoretical Directions Settlement pattern as an efficient tool of distributional analysis.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
16.3.1 Mending the brokenness: semiotics for a broken tradition
Sagan &al 1978 Murmurs, anticipating the brokenness, reaches out to potential extraterrestrial beings.
See Areshian 2003 Zoomorphic, Areshian 2006 Signs; Matejka & Titunik 1977 Semiotics; Preucel 2006 Archaeological Semiotics.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
16.3.2 Distribution
I have dealt with the question of Akkadian metrics, and with the methodological issues pertaining to the recovery of hidden systems of signification such as this, in Buccellati G 1990 Poetry (“On Poetry”) and Buccellati G 2000 Friendship (“Gilgamesh”).
A study on the relation between vessel shape and taste: Arakawa &al 2015 Wine Glass Shape; cf. Piqueras &al 2012 Consumers Perception.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
16.3.3 Linking
– [August 2013]
16.3.4 The other side of semiotics: perceptual analysis
On opticality see Davis 2000 Site, p. 111.
See Seamon 1990 Environmental or “environmental and architectural phenomenology” and for “humanistic geography”.
Sensory archaeology, see Mc Mahon 2013 Space; Thomason 2016 Sense Scapes.
– [August 2013]
16.4.1 Presuppositions
On the concept of agency, see Dobres & Robb 2005 Doing Agency; Gardner 2008 Agency.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
On the concept of materiality, see Meskell 2005 Archaeologies Of Materiality.
– [ Laerke Recht, August 2016]
16.4.2 Clustering
On Hurrian ethnicity at Urkesh, see e.g. Buccellati G 2010 Ethnicity and Buccellati G 2013 Hurrian.
– [ Laerke Recht, March 2016]
Ethnicity: Bahrani 2006 Race.
– [July 2016]
16.4.3 The structural trigger
Back to top16.5 The retrieval of consciousness: cognitive archaeology
Childe 1946 Archaeology Anthropology: it brings together the culture historical approach (without diffusion) and the socio-cultural evolutionarists.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
Renfrew 1980 Archaeology As Anthropology: the great tradition and the great divide.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
Flannery 1982 Golden Marshalltown: a parable of the archaeology of the 1980’s.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
Binford 2001 Research Problems: how to create the research query, the importance of the subject matter.
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
– [ Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]
Semiotics and cognitive archaeology: Overmann 2016 Writing; Preucel 2006 Archaeological Semiotics; Renfrew & Zubrow 1994 Ancient.
– [ Laerke Recht, August 2016]
16.6 The two hermeneutics
On the limits of scientific analysis and method, as outlined by Gadamer, see Marassi 1998 Gadamer Ermeneutica.
On a fourfold hermeneutics, see Shanks & Tilley 1992 Re- Constructing, pp. 107f.
– [August 2016]
16.6.1 Hermeneutics as invention
On the notion of “invention” see Golden & Toohey 1997 Inventing; Buccellati G 2013 Origini and Buccellati G 2013 Conquista.
On mimesis see Auerbach 1946, Mimesis; Loprieno 1988 Topos Und Mimesis; Bahrani 2003 Graven Image.
On tradition referentiality, see Foley 1991 Immanent.
16.6.2 Hermeneutics as appropriation
See 16.3.
“Die naive Unschuld ist verloregegangen, mit der man die Begriffe der Tradition den eigenen Gedanken dienstbar machte” Gadamer 1986, GW 1, p. 4; Clarke 1968 Analytical Archaeology; Clarke 1973 Archaeology.
Refer to Gadamer about “breakage” and several other metaphors, referring to what has happened in the past (but without clearly facing the problem of a totally broken tradition).
Settis, Futuro: breakage and epigonic.
On the “Great Divide” in archaeological thought, see Renfrew 1980 Archaeology As Anthropology.
– [ Laerke Recht, March 2016]
Foucault: Webb 2013 Foucault.
– [August 2016]
16.6.3 Hermeneutics of broken traditions
On “distance” (and the various pertinent terms), see Gadamer 1986, Wahrheit.
Sagan &al 1978 Murmurs, with a selection of a specific “canon,” proposes an intentional “first hermeneutics” to potential extraterrestrial analysts of terrestrial culture.
On tradition, see e.g. Eggert 2001 Prähistorische.
– [July 2016]
16.7 Archaeology and history
For a discussion on the nature of history and its relationship with archaeology, see Bloch.
Cf. Eggert 2001 Prähistorische; Hodder &al 1995 Interpreting; Shanks & Tilley 1992 Re- Constructing; Tilley 1990 Reading.
– [July 2016]
16.8.2 The autonomy of the referent
Schleiermacher.
Gadamer 1986, p. 612: “Nicht nur gelegentlich, sondern immer übertrifft der Sinn eines Textes seinen Autor. Daher ist Verstehen kein nur reproduktives, sondern stets auch ein produktives Verhalten”.
Hermeneutic claim: Gadamer 1986, p. 612.
– [July 2016]
16.8.3 Levels of signification
A striking visual example of the potential symbolic valence of a tool is the famous match cut in the initial scene of the film 2001: A Space Odyssey, where a primitive man, pondering over a bone, throws it in the air realizing its effectiveness. Here the tool emerges as a symbol of the newly found ability to extend muscular power in the extra-somatic dimension.
16.9.1 Epoché, emphathy, assent
Epoché in ancient Greek philosophy: Brittain 2008 Arcesilaus.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
Beginning of phenomenology: Husserl 1913 Ideen.
– [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]
Empathy: Stein E 1989 Empathy; Stueber 2014 Empathy.
– [ Laerke Recht, August 2016]
16.9.2 Social sciences and the humanities
On agency see Hegmon & Kulow 2005 Painting.
Anthropology and classics, Hodder 1982 Theoretical.
– [July 2016]
16.9.4 Culture and experience: mediation of patterns and immediacy of fruition
On response as experience, see Hegmon &al 2014 Human Experience.