4. Bibliography

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2016

This is an important article, which takes a special place next to other writing on the classification of artifacts (e.g. Spaulding 1982, Dunnell 1971, 1982, Rouse 1960, 1972, Krieger 1944, Read 1982, 1989, 2007). The discourse on classification has commonly avoided or ignored a basic but crucial fact: the close contact an archaeologist must have with the group of artifacts subject to classification. This very moment affects every decision, choice, query and interpretation of that process, and as such must be solidly formulated and conceptualized. In philosophical terms, this approach marks a clear contrast with the Kuhnian agenda (Kuhn 1962) on scientific thought and synthesis. What the authors aim to do is to avoid the flexibility and lack of determination in the formation of the scientific concept, narrowing it within three crucial notions: precise, objective and subject to observational determinations.

This understanding is the background for their construction of a classification scheme, using Nubian pottery as a case study and naming the system WYA, after one of the authors. The authors deliberately do not involve any sophisticated mathematical or quantitative application, instead giving prevalence to the close contact with the data and only to a very basic compositional element of pottery: the ware. The main criterion of classification is based on provenance (the excavation unit) and chronology. Upon the completion of this categorization a so-called 102-system (102 kinds of wares) is established.

Attributes/variables that form a widely agreed ware-concept like construction, fabric, surface, paste and density comprise some of the distinguished parameters. The authors acknowledge direct observation as a complicated decision making process where biased thoughts and estimations become inevitable. In other cases, the inclusion of many details may leave the gap to fall into a circular determination process. Therefore, the laboratory training in recognition of sherd variables is crucial, and an agreement level of 90% among experts is an optimal and accepted value (e.g. Mohs scale of mineral hardness).

The last few pages are dedicated to the utilization of the biological species classification in the achievement of a scientific classification in archaeology. The discussion is based on the interbreeding between populations, but as they admit, only offers some sketchy comments on their implications on scientific classification.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

Classifications are central to archaeology. Yet the theoretical literature on the subject, both in archaeology and the philosophy of science, bears very little relationship to what actually occurs in practice. This problem has long interested William Adams, a field archaeologist, and Ernest Adams, a philosopher of science, who describe their book as an ethnography of archaeological classification. It is a study of the various ways in which field archaeologists set about making and using classifications to meet a variety of practical needs. The authors first discuss how humans form concepts. They then describe and analyse in detail a specific example of an archaeological classification, and go on to consider what theoretical generalizations can be derived from the study of actual in-use classifications. Throughout the book, they stress the importance of having a clearly defined purpose and practical procedures when developing and applying classifications.

– Publisher's abstract

This volume collects papers from the Fifth World Archaeological Congress, held in Washington D.C. (21-26 June 2003) and organized by the Getty Conservation Institute. On that occasion, conservation was for the first time the major theme of an international archaeological conference, and many issues and practical examples on this topic were presented. Matters connected to presentation were also discussed, being naturally connected to the main issue of the survival of the archaeological heritage in modern days. Throughout the papers, thus, the following themes appear: the role of stakeholders for decisions related to the care and use of sites and artifacts; the challenges facing the conservation of archaeological collections; mass tourism and its economic repercussion, technical responses to sites at risk; innovative approaches to site preservation; the question of management of archaeological sites.

– Stefania Ermidoro, 2014

The fact that time is culturally determined is increasingly being accepted by archaeologists, but a coherent theory of time is still lacking. The authors suggest that such a theory would help solve not only archaeological problems, but could potentially also function as a ‘theory of everything’. The phrase ‘durational expectancies’ is related to the idea of time as culturally determined - it refers to the assumptions concerning how long certain processes should take made by different people or cultures. An example of the perception of time being determined by culture is biblical genealogy, which set the date of the creation of the world and humans at around 4000 BC; until the 19th century, this meant that science fit its research within this paradigm.

The authors introduce concepts of time taken from Indian philosophy, where a much deeper sense of time can be found. Within various schools of thought, different views of time exist: in Brahmanism, there is a constant reality underlying all change, while in Buddhism, everything is always in flux, and only the instant is real. Within Brahmanism, different schools offer additional views of time: the moment as real, with any unitary view being an illusion; and time being personified as eternal, and so having no end or beginning and therefore rather being unitary. Time is seen as either perceived or inferred (real or imaginary/created). The relation between time and change is seen as either dependent and causal or independent of each other. Jainism, on the other hand, incorporates both change and permanence in its perception of time - “an atomic pluralist view of time where time is real and absolute but not unitary” (p. 34).

These ideas of time bring about broader socio-economic biases, and though less clearly so, the same happens in modern science. For example, this happens through the impact of studies in genetics, evolutionary theory, and physics (especially with concepts of irreversibility and the forward-pointing arrow of time).

– Laerke Recht, 2015

Algaze’s groundbreaking article discusses the model he developed in his dissertation, a model whereby the Uruk culture is shown as one of diffusion through colonization. His work in the Susiana and other areas, as well as publications from other sites, is used to point to archaeological and chronological evidence supporting this claim. The model posits a series of settlement types: enclaves, stations, outposts. He also considers the impact of this expansion on the local societies (periphery), particularly in terms of assimilation and the disappearance of local traditions. The collapse of this system, having expanded beyond its means of control, is discussed as well (587).

– Federico Buccellati, 2015

This paper tells the remarkable story of the complete relocation of several temples at the ancient Egyptian site of Abu Simbel due to the building of a new dam that would flood the structures. This includes a critical assessment of some of the history and impact of preservation, and the technology involved in the procedure of the relocation.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

An interesting overview focused on the application of quantification in archaeology. It takes a historical and analytical approach to dealing with problems, flaws and contributions of quantitative logic in the clarification of the past. The implications of this agenda have interfered in the discipline rather late. A seminal effort occurred in 1953 with Spaulding (1953), who attempted to apply chi-square analysis to some ceramic types (assigned according to their attributes). Ammerman sees this initial attempt and others that followed as highly problematic and not quite capable of cogently addressing and interpreting an archaeological query. He argues that the simple conversion of archaeological data into numbers together with the interpretation of the subsequent result with formal mathematical theories has only led to greater misunderstanding, “If the logic of archaeological thinking and the logic of mathematical reasoning were indeed one and the same, as Spaulding seemed to imply, then there would be no need to tailor new quantitative methods specifically to archaeological problem solving; one had simply to use the formal machinery already at hand in the mathematical and statistical literature” (p. 243).

Ammerman uses funny remarks towards Dunnell (Dunnell 1971, 1982), and compares his theoretical and methodological synthesis in archaeology to that of medieval medicine: “The tension between theory and practice in contemporary archaeology, as identified by Dunnell, is much like that in medieval medicine. Dressed in red gowns and tall hats, the physicians of the Middle Ages would gather round a sick person, discuss the patient’s case in philosophical terms, and then turn the individual over to a lowly assistant, perhaps a barber, who would administer a cure” (pp. 235-236).

According to Ammerman, the gap between the quantitative/mathematical method and archaeology has only been filled with formalistic theories on behalf of archaeologists. To a certain extent, most of the archaeological studies that rely on quantitative methods have not managed to build a cohesive strategy that integrates the formulation of query, theory, methodology and hypothesis testing. More clearly, this is explained by his reference to Aldenderfer: “Most of the archaeologists who jumped on the bandwagon had little formal training in mathematics, statistics, and quantitative analysis and were thus prone to make basic mistakes. Those archaeologists who did not jump on the bandwagon were similarly ill-prepared to identify the mistakes being made. To many, statistical analysis became an end in itself” (quoting Aldenderfer, p. 235).

Ammerman’s agenda is to not ignore the application of quantification in the field. Instead, he shifts the focus while discussing some beneficial efforts taking place during the 1970s. More explicitly, he deals with the volume Quantitative Research in Archaeology (ed. M.S. Aldenderfer, 1987) which gives the marriage of quantitative science and archaeology another dimension. The contribution of Read in the volume is rated highly: “Read wants to see mathematics used to a much greater extent as a tool for thinking in archaeology: that is, not just for the analysis of data but for the formal representation of ideas and theories. This chapter should be read in conjunction with a review by the same author (78). Read calls for first the symbolic representation of the relationship, structure, process, or system that one would like to study and then the derivation of expectations or implications on the basis of mathematical reasoning” (pp. 240-24).

Particular attention is given to the implication of the quantitative methods in the classification process of archaeological data. Here again, a plethora of problems are highlighted. Any application from the quantitative initiative including the chi-square, two-away contingency tables, the assignment of variables (nominal, interval, ratio, ordinal) has yielded implausible results, leaving a lot of space for intuitive decisions and also opening many other dilemmas and queries in the designation of quantitative and qualitative attributes or the emic and etic categories. Discrepancies of this kind have made several archaeologists shift the focus towards traditional approaches. For instance, Adams would revoke: “I simply want to see the ‘typological debate’ returned to the arena where it rightly belongs: to the realm of the field archaeologist who has not only to make classifications but use them, day in and day out, year in and year out” (Ammerman quoting Adam, p. 244).

Positive remarks are noted on the application of factor analysis by the Binfords, and on recent applications of the intrasite spatial analysis that became highly beneficial for the understanding of spatial distribution and meaning of the data.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

– Giorgio Buccellati

In modern society, certain vessel shapes are associated with specific contents (e.g. wine from a wine glass, tea from a mug/cup etc.), and we may even feel that colour influences the experience of a food or drink. This is usually believed to be culturally determined or a kind of ‘optical illusion’, but this study provides some indication that science can at least partially support our intuitions.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2016

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2016

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2013

In the era of “big data,” science is increasingly information driven, and the potential for computers to store, manage, and integrate massive amounts of data has given rise to such new disciplinary fields as biomedical informatics. Applied ontology offers a strategy for the organization of scientific information in computer-tractable form, drawing on concepts not only from computer and information science but also from linguistics, logic, and philosophy. This book provides an introduction to the field of applied ontology that is of particular relevance to biomedicine, covering theoretical components of ontologies, best practices for ontology design, and examples of biomedical ontologies in use.

After defining an ontology as a representation of the types of entities in a given domain, the book distinguishes between different kinds of ontologies and taxonomies, and shows how applied ontology draws on more traditional ideas from metaphysics. It presents the core features of the Basic Formal Ontology (BFO), now used by over one hundred ontology projects around the world, and offers examples of domain ontologies that utilize BFO. The book also describes Web Ontology Language (OWL), a common framework for Semantic Web technologies. Throughout, the book provides concrete recommendations for the design and construction of domain ontologies.

– Publisher's abstract

This book presents a collection of papers on the conservation of ruins (as opposed to complete buildings). In the introduction, Ashurst points out the difference in the two types of conservation, both conceptually and practically. Ruins and sites are integrally connected, “The site is the reason for the ruin’s existence; it was the site that provided security or shelter, needed to be guarded, offered profitability and prosperity, or instilled awe or inspired by the beauty of its natural setting” (p. xxvi).

The conservation of ruins is seen as vital to present and future knowledge, and in this book, the objective is understood as conserving with as little change to the original as possible. This is because even the minutest act of conservation requires some level of interpretation, which always runs the risk of obscuring the original.

In a paper on display and presentation, Amanda White explains some of the core concepts related to conservation, including restoration, reconstruction, anastylosis (rebuilding collapsed buildings in their original position), deliberate ruination, managed decline and replication. She also discusses practical concerns of visitor counts and access, paying special attention to how a site can and should be maintained long term, and how it should be presented in an intelligible way. “The objective of physical presentation must, in addition to being authentic in all respects (design, materials, workmanship and so on), be determined by the particular site and its individual setting” (p. 249).

– Laerke Recht, 2016

Assmann’s definition of ‘Kulturstil’ is a join of Style, which he terms the expression of a characteristic element [Eigenart], and Culture, which he defines as the sum of all the symbolic means of expression of a society. He identifies fundamental sets of rules which aid in the Standardization and Duration of stylistic elements: proportion, projection, representation, exclusion, and syntax. He also defines a ‘Canon’ and contrasts it with the concept of Style defined above.

– Federico Buccellati, 2015

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2016

This dictionary-type book includes good, concise entries on ‘excavation’, ‘stratification’, ‘stratigraphy’, and archaeological approaches such as ‘New archaeology’ and ‘postprocessual archaeology’, among others.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

A guide book to 57 cave sites. The sections on Lascaux (pp. 93-99) and Altamira (pp. 157-164) contain insightful remarks about the relative merits of the replicas, Lascaux II and Altamira II. Particularly with regard to Altamira, Bahn notes (pp. 161 f.) that the replicas offer four distinct advantages vis-a-vis the original: (1) one sees the entrance in relation to daylight, impossible in the original; (2) one can see the ceiling, which is difficult in the original because there the floor level has risen; (3) in the original some “hideous concrete walls were installed in the early twentieth century to prevent the ceiling from collapsing”; (4) the engravings are hard to see in the original.

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2015

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2014

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2016

Bailey elaborates on his concept of time perspectivism. He argues that archaeology is a discipline in which the resolution of time is very important and the notion of scale strongly influences how we interpret the record. The archaeological record is described as a palimpsest - data is scattered, with many gaps but sometimes overlapping. The further back in time, the lower the resolution and the more gaps appear, a feature which very much lends itself to macro-scale analysis and interpretations. In this paper, Bailey especially defends himself against charges by interpretive and postprocessual archaeologists of neglecting individuals and agency. Although time perspectivism particularly lends itself to longer term processes and structures, it is not exclusively for such questions, and certainly does not claim that other kinds of research and questions should not be carried out / asked. It does, however, focus on the nature of time and how different resolutions provide potential for different kinds of ‘stories’ [something which in fact seems perfectly compatible with interpretive and postprocessual archaeologies].

– Laerke Recht, 2016

This is a captivating biographical-type story of the excavations of the fascinating site of Çatalhöyük in Turkey. The focus is on the excavations of Ian Hodder, but before this, we are offered the background and controversy surrounding the previous excavator, James Mellaart. Along the way, Balter provides an excellent explanation and account of the beginnings and arguments between processual and post-processual archaeology, as spearheaded by Binford on the one hand and Hodder on the other. Hodder’s use of contextual, interpretative, high definition archaeology at the site is placed in its social and practical contexts.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

A study on the “cultural memory” of the period following the fall of the Hittite empire. Following a thoughtful and well documented review of studies on this topic (especially Halbwach and Assman), specific cases are studied that illustrate in concrete the relationship between the two sides of the temporal divide of the dark age following the 13th century B. C.

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2014

Papers on the various applications of ‘virtual reality’ in archaeology, with accompanying CD-ROM. Different reconstructions and 3D models are presented, and some of the techniques used are introduced (including computer software).

There are also discussions concerning the history and definition of the term ‘virtual reality’, and concepts such as image construction, visualisation, reconstruction, interactivity and enhanced/augmented reality.

An important note is made about the use of virtual in archaeology: it is used either as an improved way of communicating or illustrating specific findings, or for better or new understanding of the data. The latter is rare and its potential generally not yet realised.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

– Laerke Recht, 2016

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2016

This books collects a number of essays by the French philosopher / cultural theorist Jean Baudrillard on his notions of simulation, simulacra and the real. The essays especially relate to the status of the real in media (including news media, films and advertising) and its use in political agendas.

Although Baudrillard’s focus is elsewhere, the concepts of simulation and simulacra can be compared to the understanding of the archaeological record as constitutive (CAR 8.3). A simulation is a degree beyond pretending, in that the difference between real and simulated becomes blurred - for example, a person simulating an illness may in fact produce some of the symptoms without having the actual illness. But if the symptoms are real, the distinction begins to fade. The replica cave of Lascaux could also be seen as an example. The next step is what Baudrillard calls a simulacrum. This is where the simulated, the model, the sign, becomes more real than what it originally referred to. In fact, the original may no longer exist (or never existed in the first place). A famous example used by Baudrillard is the film Apocalypse Now, where the violence has at least to some felt as real or more real than the actual events. This is exacerbated by the astronomical costs and conditions during production. In a similar vein, the archaeological record can be seen as a simulacrum - in the sense that the primary referent is lost, no longer exists, but is only constituted in the record created by archaeologists. This record in a way becomes reality, the only remaining referent to an original (an original that can only ever be constituted or interpreted).

– Laerke Recht, 2017

A series of essays that deal primarily with Lukács’ book Die Zerstörung der Vernunft, i.e. with the notion of irrationalism seen as a bourgeois reactionary ideology. [There is no explicit confrontation with Kant’s notion of pure reason. In other words, the term “impure reason” is used in an analogical, not in a critical, sense.]

Tobias Christ, “Lukács’ Begriff des Irrationalismus. Versuch einer Rekonstruktion,” pp. 60-83, traces back «die Anfänge dieser vernunftfeindlichen Denktradition» to Schelling and all the way up to the existentialists and the “fascists” who brought irrationalism from the university chairs to the streets.

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2014

In this new book, Bauman examines how we have moved away from a ‘heavy’ and ‘solid’, hardware-focused modernity to a ‘light’ and ‘liquid’, software-based modernity. This passage, he argues, has brought profound change to all aspects of the human condition. The new remoteness and un-reachability of global systemic structure coupled with the unstructured and under-defined, fluid state of the immediate setting of life-politics and human togetherness, call for the rethinking of the concepts and cognitive frames used to narrate human individual experience and their joint history.

This book is dedicated to this task. Bauman selects five of the basic concepts which have served to make sense of shared human life - emancipation, individuality, time/space, work and community - and traces their successive incarnations and changes of meaning.

Liquid Modernity concludes the analysis undertaken in Bauman’s two previous books Globalization: The Human Consequences and In Search of Politics. Together these volumes form a brilliant analysis of the changing conditions of social and political life by one of the most original thinkers writing today.

– Publisher's abstract

Bernd and Hilla Becher’s photography can be considered conceptual art, typological study, and topological documentation. Their work can be linked to the Neue Sachlichkeit movement of the 1920s and to such masters of German photography as Karl Blossfeldt, August Sander, and Albert Renger-Patzsch. Their photographs of industrial structures, taken over the course of forty years, are the most important body of work in independent objective photography. A keynote of their contributions to “industrial archaeology” has been their creation of typologies of different types of buildings; this book, which accompanies a major retrospective exhibition, collects all known Becher studies of industrial building types and presents them as a visual encyclopedia.

Each chapter is devoted to a different structure: water towers, coal bunkers, winding towers, breakers (ore, coal, and stone), lime kilns, grain elevators, blast furnaces, steel mills, and factory facades. These are organized according to typologies, most of which are presented as tableaux or suites of about twelve images each. The book contains close to 2000 individual images. The accompanying text by Armin Zweite is an essential art historical consideration of the Bechers’ work. This ultimate Becher book stands as a capstone to the Bechers’ unique body of work.

– Publisher's abstract

The authors present their vision of how the concept of ‘open’ can be used in and improve archaeology. ‘Open’ refers to free access and redistribution and includes not only academic papers and monograph publication, but also software, methodology, source code and data, including ‘raw’ data. Some of the barriers in sharing these aspects are discussed as bureaucracy, media and incompatible structures and formats. The obvious advantages of open archaeology are free access to a much broader array of scholars and other stakeholders, which in turn is seen as essentially leading to better knowledge and interpretation. That is, the more information about a certain topic, the higher the standard of the conclusions that can be drawn.

However, there are issues and problems that need to be considered - accreditation, copyright and licensing are some of these. The academic system is also set up in such a way that publication is rewarded and accredited much higher than e.g. simple data output. Perhaps even more significant are those with a strong ethical aspect, such as when data has implications for living communities or cultural groups or when data can be utilised for illegal activity like looting.

The archaeological process is divided into a three-stage process: 1) physical observation - measurements and recording of features and objects; 2) classifications and groupings of the data, which help structure the physical observations; and 3) interpretation, analysis and hypothesis. Each of these can be shared in an open format, but often only 3) is in fact shared, which does not give access to 1) and 2), and therefore does not allow for others to ‘repeat the experiment’ (i.e. test the conclusions based on the ‘raw’ data).

In the authors’ vision, the data of physical observations would be placed in an open repository that consists of a broad array of sites [ideally all sites?] and is able to link this data. “The feedback mechanism implied by linked data can profoundly alter the way archaeologists, and others, engage with their data and derived resources” (p. 484).

This paper is part of a World Archaeology volume dedicated to digital archaeology. See Lake 2012.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

This book looks at the relationship between museums and society, including changing attitudes in museum display and strategies. The influence of colonialism and political developments is discussed in detail. Archaeology and archaeological methods are also closely related to how museums choose to present the objects from the past.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

Collection of essays reviewing theoretical and philosophical trends throughout the history of archaeology as a discipline, and their practical applications. See also the entries on Webster 2008 (culture history), Earle 2008 (anthropology), and Gardner 2008 (agency).

– Laerke Recht, 2014

The authors explain how digital technologies have been used at the excavations of Çatalhöyük and the impact this has had on the process, interpretation and approach of all those involved. Special emphasis is here on those technologies that have allowed for greater reflexivity. Computer tablets are used for recording in the field and integrated into 3D modelling and intra-site GIS. This really takes digital archaeology to the trowel’s edge and allows for immediate feedback through the integration into the overall database. It also allowed better and increased communication between specialist labs and people working in the field.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

Pp. 15-34: Bernbeck sees classical and prehistoric archeologies as the founding fields for the broad spectrum of theoretical approaches as seen in the diverse fields of archaeology today. Classical archaeology moved from a near poetic appreciation of art to a moment of analysis of individual objects to a systemic study of the field. While fieldwork developed into an important part of classical archaeology, it remains tied to its art-historical roots. Prehistoric archaeology began with a strong fieldwork component, and was focused on understanding cultures and their interaction as seen through changes in material culture.

– Federico Buccellati, 2015

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2015

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2015

Collection of essays on digital humanities, especially theoretical aspects. In Berry’s introductory essay, a discussion on ‘humanity and the humanities’ is particularly relevant for CAR: “If code and software are to become objects of research for the humanities and social sciences, including philosophy, we will need to grasp both the ontic and ontological dimentions of computer code. Broadly speaking, then, I suggest that we introduce a humanistic approach to the subject of computer code, paying attention to the wider aspects of code and software, and connecting them to the materiality of this growing digital world.” (p. 17)

– Laerke Recht, 2016

Introduction to the work of Husserl, the so-called father of phenomenology. Includes discussion of some of his core concepts, such as intentionality, pure logic (and pure grammar), the eidetic reduction, epoché, bracketing, intersubjectivity and transcendental phenomenology.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

Accepting the need for establishing and following universal laws in archaeology, the author analyzes four groups of tombs from central Italy, and proposes two possible sets of inferences. The first draws on the typology of the tombs to derive inferences about the social structure of the particular groups to which these tombs belong, while the second proposes a model for the analysis of necropoleis in general. The concluding remarks address the issue of earlier documentation, indicating how it is well nigh impossible to apply similar standards when the published information is insufficient.

– Giorgio Buccellati, Luca Pintaudi, 2014

In this article, Binford coins the phrase “Archaeology is anthropology or it is nothing,” suggesting that archaeological thought is derived from anthropological studies. Buccellati, contra Binford, discusses archaeology as a unique and self-contained discipline rather than defining it as a subdiscipline or subcategory of another discipline.

– Heidi Dodgen, 2013

A further investigation of Binford’s approach to archaeology as science (see Binford 1971), this paper presents various aims and approaches in archaeology and places them in a historical context. This article provides some background to the problem that Buccellati points out, namely that of categorizing archaeology as a subdiscipline

– Heidi Dodgen, 2013

The clash and controversy between the traditional approach and processualism takes a different direction here (see Renfrew 1980, Flannery 1982). Binford, the pioneer of processualism, centers the discourse at a basic level: the research target, or what is the focus of our studies. As he writes, “I cannot make any judgment about the rationality of the way you intend to proceed until you tell me what you are trying to accomplish” (p. 669).

Traditional archaeology, on the other hand, is not preoccupied with the source of the problem. Perceived from the perspective of Taylor, archaeology is, if anything, more of a technical field which based on subject and query seeks to borrow from other disciplines. According to Taylor (1948: 44), “Archaeology is neither history nor anthropology. As an autonomous discipline it consists of a method and a set of specialized techniques for the gathering or “production” of cultural information” (p. 669).

In Binford’s view, the above definition does not infer a ‘how’ or ‘why’ or to what extent interpretation is formed, hence does not fully addresses the mission of the discipline. A theoretical approach cannot spring from first-order observations. Instead, what is required is a relational strategy among things like actors, actions and places, associated with other types of contexts like those studied in ethnography.

Binford and Renfrew (1980), criticize each other’s agenda for its particularism. Renfrew refers to the exaggerated focus on one single topic, like myth, evolution, ethnography and so on. On the other hand, Binford draws the attention towards his widely-known debate with Borde, a classic representer of the traditional approach (The Great Tradition as Renfrew prefers to call it) and claims, “my arguments with Bordes in the 1960s and 1970s were not focused on how he classified the stone tools. I questioned his assumptions that variability in stone-tool frequencies was referable exclusively to the ethnic identity of the makers. Instead, I thought of assemblages as varying combinations of suites of items for which the determinant condition of their regular association would be semi or completely independent from one another” (p. 673).

Binford also sees problems with the theoretical framework of cognitive archaeology and its difficult association with first order observations. Moreover, at an inductive level between archaeological interpretation and explanation he gives prevalence to the second: “theory is not something one brings to data. Theory is developed to explain relational patterns among data that are analytically generated among different observational domains or dataset” (p. 676).

He concludes by arguing for a strong role of the subject matter in the discipline and careful and systematic analysis of the patterning of data.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

The Death of Archaeological Theory? addresses the provocative subject of whether it is time to discount the burden of somewhat dogmatic theory and ideology that has defined archaeological debate and shaped archaeology over the last 25 years. Seven chapters meet this controversial subject head on, also assessing where archaeological theory is now, and future directions. John Bintliff questions what theory is and argues that archaeologists should be freed from ‘Ideopraxists’, or those who preach that a single approach or model is right to the exclusion of all others. Marc Pluciennik again questions what we mean by archaeological theory and argues that the role of intellectual fashion is underestimated. He predicts pressure from outside archaeology to redirect our dominant theories towards genetic and human impact theory. Kristian Kristiansen argues that theory cannot die, but it can change direction and sees signs of a retreat from the present post-modern and post-processual cycle towards a more science based, rationalistic cycle of revived modernity. To Mark Pearce the most striking thing about the present state of archaeological theory is that there is no emerging paradigm to be discerned; he proposes that Theory is not dead, but has instead become more eclectic and nuanced. Two papers offer a different perspective from other areas of the world; Alexander Gramsch examines the issue from the German tradition and shows that in Central and Eastern Europe not only has Anglo-American Theory had limited impact, but current discussions on the future of method and theory offer a broader view of the discipline in which older traditions are seen to form the foundation. Kent Flannery and Joyce Marcus demonstrate that American archaeologists do not foresee the death of a genuinely archaeological theory (which they believe has never existed) but fear the real catastrophe would be the death of anthropological theory, because some anthropology today has become decidedly anti-scientific, rejecting not only the controlled comparison and contrast of cultures, but also the use of generalisation, both of which are crucial to theories and models and without which the longue duree will always be invisible.

– Publisher's summary

In this book, published posthumously and unfinished, the author presents an in-depth reflection on the main issues connected to historical research. In so doing, Bloch uses an extremely modern approach, advocating methods which have many points in common with the “grammatical approach” proposed by Buccellati for archaeology. Anticipating some of the topics discussed in the second chapter of the Critical Theory, in fact, Bloch goes against the common idea that “l’Histoire est la science du passé” (p. 16): he considers it, instead, as a “science des hommes dans le temps” (p. 18). As a modern historian, he never escapes from a perspective focused on written sources; in a few cases, however, he shows how archaeology comes to the aid of the historian, by playing the role of a “witness” that, if questioned and interpreted properly, offers invaluable clues for the reconstruction of correct historical events.

He is aware that “les textes, ou les documents archéologiques, fût-ce les plus clairs en apparence et les plus complaisants, ne parlent que lorsqu’on sait les interroger” (p. 40). Thus, describing events is not enough. Historical research must quest for the nexus among their causes and effects. Moreover, he shows his modern sensitivity by underlining the importance for an historian of being expert in the argument of his interest, but also versed in all the main topics involved in his own discipline. At the same time, he advocates the importance of the cooperation among specialists, willing to recreate a “universal history”. In order to do this, he identifies two prerequisites: the willingness of working in teams and the agreement to some preliminary definitions and to a given lexicon.

He stresses the importance of definitions and of clear chronological schemes: they must be instruments apt to indubitably identify the object of the research, but they must also be flexible enough to be able to adjust to new discoveries. This issue, similar to the grammatical approach suggested for archaeology that stresses the importance of the adherence to a common lexicon, is connected by Bloch to the issue of analysis. From his point of view, only after a proper classification of each element of the system can the whole be recomposed and explained, as a natural consequence of the process.

– Stefania Ermidoro, 2014

An evaluation of prehistoric studies in Europe, in a historical and topical dimension! Bogucki identifies a close connection of this tradition with that of the culture-historical approach where issues of chronology and interpretations of life-ways yet remain at the center of attention.

The new development of the epistemology of theory lacks the implications of general laws, or formal theories (Read and LeBlanc 1978, Salmon 1978, 1982), focused mainly on topic-related subjects like those of symbolic behavior, sociology, systematics, economics, ecology, demography, geography and so on. Moreover, a close interconnection between these theoretical avenues with clearly defined methods and inductive analysis has never been questioned in the European environment. Bogucki goes on to mention several productive efforts occurring in the studies of the European Neolithic, prehistoric economy, demography, ecology and so on. A focus on the analysis of settlement pattern, assessment of environment, subsistence remains or mortuary practices has overshadowed the understanding of relational characteristics between the addressed theoretical subjects and the derived interpretations from inductive analysis.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

The approach usually referred to as ‘Critical Theory’ has both a broad and a narrow sense - in the narrow sense, it refers to the philosophical tradition represented by the Frankfurt School, while the broad sense includes other movements with essentially the same goal. A critical theory is a “social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms”. Many approaches focussed on minority groups thus become part of critical theory. Additionally, critical theory is understood as “adequate only if it meets three criteria: it must be explanatory, practical, and normative, all at the same time. That is, it must explain what is wrong with current social reality, identify the actors to change it, and provide both clear norms for criticism and achievable practical goals for social transformation.”

– Laerke Recht, 2016

The volume collects the texts of some conferences held by Braudel in the years of confinement in two prison camps in Germany, between 1941 and 1944. “L’histoire, mesure du monde” is particularly interesting since it reflects and somehow anticipates the fundamental issues included in his major work La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II, which he wrote in these same years. Braudel himself describes it, in fact, as “un long plaidoyer en faveur d’une forme d’histoire, la recherche d’une méthode” (p. 15). From the first pages, he proposes a history that is grande “qui vise au général, capable d’extrapoler les details, de dépasser l’érudition et de saisir le vivant” (p. 16) and profonde “une histoire des hommes vue dans ses réalités collectives, dans l’évolution lente des structures” (p. 17).

By bringing together History (as a science, and therefore written here with the capital H) and the methods usually attributed to the social sciences, Braudel voluntarily decides to adopt the approach proposed by Febvre and Bloch together with the Annales School. All the fundamental concepts of Braudel’s theoretical method are summarized here: the emphasis on the collective nature of human mentalities, the critique of a history conceived as a mere record of human events, the advocacy for an approach that should be both scientific and sociological.

Above all, the two main features of Braudel’s are included in this text: firstly, the use of the longue durée approach against the the courte durée and the histoire événementielle, to stress the impact of the slow and somehow imperceptible effects of geographical, climatic, demographical, and technological factors on human societies. Secondly, the importance of an integrative approach which includes geography and history, that should create a new science called geohistory (using a neologism suggested by Braudel himself).

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

– Alexandra Ion, 2020

This is an account of how standardised excavation reports are - to the extend that it could be called a literary genre in itself. Bradley describes the structure as follows, “First, there is the basic account of the excavated structures, their layout and development over time. The second element is the publication of specialist contributions which were generally concerned with artefacts, food remains and environmental evidence. The last component is a more general discussion of how the site should be interpreted and its wider implications for an understanding of the past” (p. 667). [cf. the structure recommended in how-to manuals like Joukowsky 1980, which closely follows the same]

This structure has a historical background, following the advent of stratigraphy, typology and specialist fields. Bradley believes that there is no longer any reason that the components are kept separated in this manner and favours a much larger analytical and integrated aspect. Digital publication has the potential to aid in this goal and offer a more integrated or linked approach.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

The volume collects the texts of some conferences held by Braudel in the years of confinement in two prison camps in Germany, between 1941 and 1944. “L’histoire, mesure du monde” is particularly interesting since it reflects and somehow anticipates the fundamental issues included in his major work La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II, which he wrote in these same years. Braudel himself describes it, in fact, as “un long plaidoyer en faveur d’une forme d’histoire, la recherche d’une m?thode” (p. 15). From the first pages, he proposes a history that is grande “qui vise au général, capable d’extrapoler les details, de dépasser l’érudition et de saisir le vivant” (p. 16) and profonde “une histoire des hommes vue dans ses réalités collectives, dans l’évolution lente des structures” (p. 17).

By bringing together History (as a science, and therefore written here with the capital H) and the methods usually attributed to the social sciences, Braudel voluntarily decides to adopt the approach proposed by Febvre and Bloch together with the Annales School. All the fundamental concepts of Braudel’s theoretical method are summarized here: the emphasis on the collective nature of human mentalities, the critic against a history conceived as a mere record of human events, the advocacy for an approach that should be at the same time scientific and sociological.

Above all, the two main feature of Braudel’s are included in this text: firstly, the use of the longue durée approach against the the courte durée and the histoire événementielle, to stress the impact of the slow and somehow imperceptible effects of geographical, climatic, demographical, and technological factors on human societies. Secondly, the importance of an integrative approach which include geography and history, that should bring to a new science called (using a neologism suggested by Braudel himself) geohistory.

– Stefania Ermidoro, 2014

Touching on the important topic of ownership in archaeology, Breglia here uses developments in Yucatan (Mexico) as a case study. A move to allow privatisation of the management of archaeological sites in this area has widespread implications, both practically and conceptually. Interest groups (or “share holders”) include national agencies, private companies, site employees, the population at large and local people. The topic illustrates archaeology’s inevitable involvement with society and politics. The central question is ‘Who owns the past?’ (or does anybody?). At least by some groups, privatisation is in the case studies here seen as the selling out of cultural heritage, which is part of the collective identity of these groups.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

The concept of epoché was used by the Greek philosopher Arcesilaus as part of his skeptical approach. This involved the universal suspencion of assent - i.e. refraining from any positive arguments or affirmation of any kind because nothing can be known on the basis of philosophical theory alone [although see article for possible inconsistencies in Arcesilaus’ position].

– Laerke Recht, 2016

The paper contains many facts and analyses. It is conceptualized on a historical framework focused on the emergence of stratigraphic excavation in the so-called era of ‘New Archaeology’. Several practitioners including Nelson, Petrie, Kidder, Wissler, Kidder, and Boas mark the seminal efforts on the matter. It mainly examines the reasoning behind the development of the systematic method of stratigraphic excavation as part of data collection. This discussion noted an increasing popularity at the beginning of the twentieth century of prioritizing the displacement of portable artifacts (Nelson) or the records of the topographical information (Flinders). Further developments carried out by Boas, Kidder, Reisner and Wissler established solid excavation techniques based on the consecutive investigation of layers and the separate analysis of the units. What seems to have remained rather questionable in reltaion to these efforts was that the American scholars only managed to construct a unilinear tradition deeply rooted in the cultural premise which named this approach ‘cultural stratigraphy’.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

The paper offers an overview of the theoretical discussion on the structure and definition of concepts in artifact typologies. Beyond the formal order or organization of an assemblage the construction of typology must serve as an objective reflection of the environment and context in which artifacts are formed and produced. It is due to this understanding that approaches like that of the type-variety (Keesing, Colton) which only focus on a clear association between artifacts and their pertinent cultural unit are considered as highly formal, not revealing a broader understanding on the properties of an assemblage. By taking this into account Brown highlights the subject matters that best inform the meaning and the relationship of attributes within an assemblage. Thus the totality of attributes is classified according to functional or stylistic types/terms (see Sackett 1977, Wobst 1977), placing morphological attributes above these two. To this extent, the understanding of the properties of the data (assemblage, burial practices) elucidates issues related to technology, information exchange and social, cultural and economic background. Brown extensively evaluates the quantitative typology, recognizing this as a crucial tool that avoids the intuitive decisions in the process, focusing on the objective measurement of significant groupings (types) and attribute relationships.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

A lucid overview of Lester Embree‘s contributions to the relationship between archaeology and philosophy. The first part deals with Embree’s philosophy of archaeology (pp. 393-398). Embree assigns a place or pre-eminence to archaeology within the social sciences, considering it as “the most basic of the positive sciences”. Brown notices a sense of inferiority in archaeologists, who tend, partly because of the prevailing positivistic attitude, to consider exact sciences like physics as having a predominant position. More importantly, Embree develops a theory of archaeolgical cognition, through which he “analyze[s] the cognitive and epistemological basis of our understanding of the archaeological ‘record’” (p. 396). What Embree discusses, then, is the nature and limits of the inference. As Brown notes, this contrasts with post-processual relativism, as well as with that of “latter day archaeological phenomenologists” (p. 397). [The notion of “archaeological cognition” and its phenomenological justification serves as a sort of preliminary to the direction I pursue in this essay.] Embree explicitly rejects a hermeneutic approach to archaeology, but this is in terms of the (relativistic) hermeneutics associated with Hodder (p. 398). The second part deals with empirical studies of American theoretical archaeology (pp. 398-399). It is especially Embree’s systematic and almost “ethnographic” approach in investigating the New Archaeology (or “American Theoretical Archaeology”, as he called it) that retains Brown’s attention. The term metaarchaeology was introduced to refer to “secondary, reflective and non-substantive research”. Embree’s works in this area are work in progress towards his planned The Rise of American Theoretical Archaeology.

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2014

Good introduction to the use of network methods and their history in archaeology, along with potential future uses.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

The paper offers a theoretical emphasis on the introduction, origin, importance, value and impact of writing in society. Beside drastically changing communication within ancient society, writing also comprises an invaluable and insightful source of information for modern studies and research.

The paper has a dual emphasis on historic and historiographic premises. The historic deals with the importance of writing and its invention, considered a stepping stone in the so-called process of ‘urban revolution’. The historiographic premise, on the other hand, examines the potential of writing to offer a higher degree of specificity for the transmission and the quantitative increase of information conveyed either synchronically or diachronically in a society. Insightful comments on the composition of writing are covered by two approaches: representational and graphemic.

Further, the paper discusses the relation between symbols and actions, which have contributed to the creation of contiguous linguistic devices. Writing serves as the final phase of this innovative procedure. Buccellati wonders: how did such a process become accepted and understood, effective and practical? In particular, he deals with the evolution of writing and the technical antecedents (the syntactical and non-syntactical categories).

Lastly, the paper focuses on the positive impact of writing in cultural and human (mental and physical) evolution and its immediate influence on what Buccellati calls the first extrasomatic extension of logical brain function.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

– Laerke Recht, 2016

– Laerke Recht, 2016

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2014

The theoretical presuppositions for the application of distributional classes to ethnicity as a topic documented only from archaeological sources.

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2014

An example of the application of distributional classes to ethnicity as a topic documented only from archaeological sources.

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2014

The author deals with the concept of “ethnicity,” emphasizing the semiotic aspect of the phenomenon: he states that “ethnic identity relies on the interrelationship of a complex set of signs” (p. 84), and thus the goal of modern scholars is to study the valence of such signs in order to recognize the presence and nature of the ancient ethnic bond. While trying to identify the data related to Urkesh and its ancient population, Buccellati poses the question of the correct method that must be applied in the research on broken traditions. He finds a solution in the identification of distributional classes whose appropriateness and accuracy is ensured by virtue of their complexity and validation from archaeological data.

He discusses, then, the concrete embodiments taken by intangible phenomena like language (written texts and onomastics), religion (sacred buildings and objects), style (architecture and art) and social customs (dresses and cuisine). All these phenomena have left traces on the ground, and archaeology helps in recovering and interpreting them: a correct semiotic analysis of all these clues, properly ordered and interrelated, allows a precise identification of cultural and social traits belonging to broken traditions.

– Stefania Ermidoro, 2014

Develops in detail the notion of “invention” especially as applied to the landscape, investigating the impact that this had on political awareness.

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2014

The broken tradition between hominins and humans.

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2014

An in-depth approach, it sees the subject as a provocation, in fact, as a series of “provocations” (Part 4): this is meant to underscore the novelty of the digital dimension within humanities, and to explore the response these provocations are receiving.

– Giorgio Buccellati

A basic guide to field work, including survey and excavation, pre- and post-excavation concerns. Very detailed and practical.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

Buschor’s definition of archaeology reads: “den durchs Auge aufnehmbaren Teil der Menschheitsgeschichte.” (3) The importance of objects lies with their appearance, but it is also conditioned by context. A search for meaning and an imagination play an important role in the research done by an archaeologist, even if they are not artists.

– Federico Buccellati, 2015

As Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, Dr. Vannevar Bush has coordinated the activities of some six thousand leading American scientists in the application of science to warfare. In this significant article he holds up an incentive for scientists when the fighting has ceased. He urges that men of science should then turn to the massive task of making more accessible our bewildering store of knowledge. For years inventions have extended man’s physical powers rather than the powers of his mind. Trip hammers that multiply the fists, microscopes that sharpen the eye, and engines of destruction and detection are new results, but not the end results, of modern science. Now, says Dr. Bush, instruments are at hand which, if properly developed, will give man access to and command over the inherited knowledge of the ages. The perfection of these pacific instruments should be the first objective of our scientists as they emerge from their war work. Like Emerson’s famous address of 1837 on “The American Scholar,” this paper by Dr. Bush calls for a new relationship between thinking man and the sum of our knowledge.

– Editor's abstract

In this book, the authors attempt to explain the origins of language by combining biology with evolution. Solving or understanding the structural basis for one of our higher intellectual functions may in fact solve them all. Language is here seen as biologically determined. The concept of proto-language is a “stage intermediate between no language and full language” (p. 104). Some of the theories explaining the origin of language are based on 1) individual names (that is, names of specific individuals, not a group term such as ‘frog’ or ‘dog’), 2) the increasing requirements of a complex social life, and 3) so-called theories of mind, essentially the problem of intersubjectivity in philosophical terms. The authors here argue that these are not adequate explanations, and instead speculate that language acquisition did not require intelligence, but was as a result of the basic need to convey information.

A ‘selective pressure for language’ (required in order to explain its occurrence in evolutionary terms - the proto-language would need an immediate payoff, or it would not have developed) appeared specific to the human species in the form of predation risks and food availability (finding and knowing food sources). The exact time when this ‘Magic Moment’ happened is not known.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

This paper is in the format of a dialogue between an archaeologist interested in psychology and a psychologist interested in archaeology. The discussion is about possible psychological features and reasons behind individual archaeologists’ choice of career. The fascination with dirt, looking and fragmentation are some of the topics that come up.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

The section entitled “Going backwards” (“Procedere all’indietro”), pp. 249-257, is particularly interesting for the special approach he takes to the way in which a detective story proceeds from given clues. He gives pride of place to Sherlock Holmes, who is essentially a chemist and an anatomist, while Watson is explicitly a surgeon (and this is in line with the fact that Conan Doyle himself was trained as a medical doctor (p. 249 f.). Carandini takes position against Ginzburg 1979 “Spie,” who had contrasted the clue based paradigm (“paradigma indiziario”) of the human sciences to the Galielean paradigm, as being more rigorous. Carandini objects that archaeology is, instead, just as rigorous. [In my oponion, his argument would be strengthened by a more epxlicit reference to the materiality of the clues employed in a crime investigation, which offers the real similarity to archaseological reason.]

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2014

An essay about the social archaeology of excavation and what archaeology does to the world. Commonly, the crew (like the crew of a ship) is isolated from the rest of the world, giving an ‘in the wild’ kind of experience. The embodied experience, social activities, and individuality through for example worn toolkits are discussed. “The practice of excavation is central to archaeology for two linked reasons: it is a primary source of data for analysis and interpretation, and it is by doing excavation that archaeologists are made.” (p. 98).

– Laerke Recht, 2014

In the introduction (pp. 1-17), Carr explains that, in light of the burgeoning of interest in statistical analysis in archaeology, the need has arisen to look at the philosophical presuppositions, especially in terms of the philosophy of science. “Concordance” refers to the logical congruence between data and theory on the one hand (“etic coherence”) and technique and theory on the other (“emic coherence”) (pp. 4-7). Discordance refers then to the discrepancy between the terms of the two binomials, and this results especially from degrees of selectivity in the data (8-10).

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2015

The author meditates on the changes in reading habits caused by online and computer activity as opposed to printed books. He believes that our increased time looking / reading from screens has caused a lack of concentration. Online or screen activity is seen as surfing (closely associated with the word ‘surface’), as opposed to diving or in-depth reading of printed books (Carr’s analogy goes, “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski”). This is particularly interesting in light of the discussion of ways of reading and hyperlinks and footnotes in CAR (section 12.2). Concerning footnotes vs. hyperlinks, “tripping from link to link. (Unlike footnotes, to which they are sometimes likened, hyperlinks don’t merely point to related works; they propel you toward them”.

The new way of online reading may even go as far as change the very process of thinking and causing neurological transformations in the brain - so far, we still do not know the extent of this, or whether it may be seen as a positive or negative development. Carr notes how even the hardware can change how we think and express ourselves, using as an example Nietzsche’s transition from hand writing to a typewriter with a corresponding change in writing style (in the words of Nietzsche, “our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts”).

– Laerke Recht, 2016

This investigation into the origins of complex human language combines biology with studies of childhood. Carstairs-McCarthy takes the very interesting approach of identifying unusual features of human language - features that are common to all human languages and that we are so accustomed to that we do not notice them. Three ‘peculiarities’ identified by Carstairs-McCarthy are vocabulary size, duality of patterning and the distinction between sentences and noun phrases. He proceeds to demonstrate how language does not necessarily have to have these aspects, and this may have implications for understanding why and how human language came about. The discussion also includes a survey of pertinent archaeological and anthropological material that has been used to argue for (or against) the presence of complex language (e.g. evidence of symbolism, certain types of tools).

– Laerke Recht, 2016

Carver and Lang discuss their attempt to implement ‘ArchaeInf’ in Germany. The system incorporates data from various sites and bring together the different recording systems used for each project. Archaeology, placed as it is between humanities and science, is an ideal discipline for digital applications - also due to the large amount of data involved. The main problem encountered by the authors came from potential users, who were reluctant to embrace the system, partly due to proprietary interest of making ‘their’ data available, and partly due to a lack of technological skill.

The authors point out that recording and type of documentation have the potential to shape interpretation, “the results of archaeological research will be different if the documentation is recorded on paper than if it is recorded digitally (i.e. ‘the medium is the message’): ‘Each recording medium (text, digital and still photography, video and audio) forces an archaeologist to take a different angle from which to observe and discuss the subject’.” (p. 226, quoting Stevanovic 2000, p. 238).

Regarding the definition of the field of archaeology, we can also note several considerations:

1) When doing archaeology, we perform a double task, “Archaeology is further complicated by the fact that it has a double narrative (cf. Binford 2001: 46): we need to consider both the metaphysics of the events in the past and those of the archaeological investigation.” (p. 227)

2) Archaeology is fragmented into sub-fields, which often results in fragmented analyses and narratives

3) ‘Archaeology’ means something different in various countries, often based in different histories of the discipline. These histories, with links to e.g. prehistory, art history, anthropology and geology, are strongly reflected in archaeological practice and institutional organisation even today.

– Laerke Recht, 2015

Carver provides a short discussion about the definition and history of archaeology and what it really is or is seen to be: contrary to common belief among archaeologists, excavation was not from the beginning or a core of the discipline, and ‘archaeology’ is by no means the same in every country. “The point is this: Kemble was arguing that his ‘archaeology’ was a science simply because its data could be classified, whereas we would now say that science comes with trying to explain such ‘arrangements’.” (p. 22).

– Laerke Recht, 2014

We here see a rare instance of a discussion of stratigraphy (or rather the lack of it) in theoretical discourses in archaeology. Carver regrets that this is so uncommon and takes us through some of the history and possible reasons for it, including the very different attitude to theory of archaeologists in different countries (in fact, in some places, theory is not considered part of archaeology at all).

– Laerke Recht, 2014

Short outline of some of the practical types of excavation that occur or has occurred. These depend on the strategies of the excavator, and may also be determined by the type of site and its natural environment. Some of the concepts discussed include total excavation, single context recording and open area excavation. Carver also presents post-processual concepts of reflexivity, multi-vocality and Cunliffe’s ‘Levels of Publication’.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

Besides individual, social and collective memory (pp. 20-24), Casey analyzes in detail the notion of public memory, which is fed by the previous three. It is “bivalent in temporality,” because it is “attached to the past” and yet “acts to ensure a future” (p.17; see also. p. 31); it “serves as an encircling horizon” (p. 25), meaning that it provides a frame for private individual memories (the Husserlian concept of horizon recurs often in the text, see esp. p. 30). “Being public does not guarantee constancy over time: to be public is to be subject to continual reassessment and revision” (p. 29).

This reassessment has a bearing on the concept of broken traditions: “a given event in public memory is subject to two forms of revision on the part of the public itself: first, a discovery of a glaringly part of its content; second, a reassessment of its primary significance as a wider, or simply different, ethical or historical context arises” p. 29).

Even more pertinent for an understanding of broken traditions is the remark that public memory contributes in an essential way to the sense of group identity (p. 37), as the “indispensable core of the public sphere… [which] would not be possible were it not for the enabling presence of public memory at its fringes. This memory, not unlike the walls of the city [a nice metaphor!] literally defines the terms of the agon, providing the conditions within which open dialogue can happen” (p. 31).

Public memory is also essentially tied to a public space (such as the agora), a public presence (confrontation through proximity), and public discussion (p. 32f.), as well as common topic and commemoration in place (p. 33f.).

In the concluding remarks, reference is made (p.39) to ways to deal with given places, such as the extermination camps of Buchenwald and Dachau [the latter being a case of damnatio memoriae]. The importance of place is stressed [which is significant for archaeology, given the physical nature of its data]: “on the one hand, … place is part of public memory in the making. … On the other hand, place remains central to a more fully consolidated public memory that has become a horizon for the future remembering of many others, not only of those present at the moment of making” (p. 41f.).

Throughout, vivid examples experienced by the author in New York after September 11 are given.

Casey deals extensively with the notion of memory from other points of view, see http://edwardscasey.com/?page_id=13 and see also A. Cruz-Pierre and D. A. Landes, Exploring the Work of Edward S. Casey. Giving Voice to Place, Memory, and Imagination. London: Bloomsbury, 2013.

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2014

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2013

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2013

“Mythical consciousness” is seen as being between the immediacy of perception and the mediation effort of “metrical” reasoning (p. 107). Cassirer sets up a precise morphology (“Formenlehre”) of myth by analyzing, with great insight the dimensions of space, time and number. In the case of space, for example, the case is made for a homogeneity of the parts within the framework of scientific thought, whereby the elements are, as it were, deprived of content and derive their value only from their correlation; whereas in mythical consciousness any single component is endowed with a measure of full content that mirrors the whole. [Scientific thought may then be interpreted in terms of a referential system, where correlation as such exhausts the definition of the item; hence the grammatical nature of the analysis.]

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2013

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2013

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2013

[This was given as a lecture at the Linguistic Circle of New York, an event missed by Lévi-Strauss, see Caws 1997 Structuralism, p. 43.]

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2013

In his *Substanzsbegriff und Funktionsbegriff * Cassirer offers an example of how to deal, starting from his Kantian legacy, with the challenges posed by the philosophical context in the first decade of the twentieth century. A first point of interest arises therefore already from the historical context of the opera. After the idealistic era, the rise of science, both natural and “human” sciences such as psychology and phenomenology, the Kantian framework has to be presented in a new fashion. As for the context of CAR, Cassirer’s work can be seen as a rigorous, and to a certain extent less problematic than Kant’s, view of relationality, i.e. the particular relations between the elements of a system. What in CAR is called a systemic overlay of a -etic (open) system by a -emic (close) system is, in Cassirer’s terms, a case of the relation between a law and its cases, or between an equation and its solutions.

The concept of knowledge

The strict separation between sensibility and intellect (Sinnlichkeit and Verstand) whose union gives birth to knowledge [see section Tensionality, in the Digital Monograph on Kant] in the Kantian sense, becomes less stressed, in favor of a “coherentist” concept of knowledge. Instead as a modeling of the matter of sensations through the formal categories, Cassirer defines a case of correct knowledge as one which, within a given system, is capable of representing the whole of that given level of reality – i.e. the system itself. The reference is founded on a symbolization sustained by the relation to validity. The latter is applied to the formal structures, which constitutes the backbone of every scientific knowledge, and which can therefore be represented through abstract symbols: “the particular element that serves as a sign, is indeed not materially similar to the totality that is signified, - for the relations constituting the totality cannot be fully expressed and ‘copied’ by any particular formation, - but a thoroughgoing logical community subsist between them, in so far as both belong in principle to the same system of explanation” (p. 285).

Through particular acts – called “logical acts” a state of affairs is integrated in that precise wider frame of regularities, which defines a particular “field of experience,” such as field of sensual perceptions, or even fields involving timeless relationships, such as the ordinal’s number system.

System and singularities

An experience is thus defined as scientific, or objective, when a complete definition of the set of fixed relationships is reached, to the point at which the object itself is defined as the result of the overlapping of different dependencies within a single system or of systems themselves, “it is thus a logical differentiation of the content of experience and their arrangement in an ordered system of dependencies, that constitutes the real kernel of the concept of reality” (p. 280). As single quantum of experience is, as such, related to other, and the entire “web” of relationships defining the system is not given per se, but rather appears together with the object itself, as the sum of its conditions. The object is consequently defined as a symbol, or a sign for the system, thanks to the logical acts, which are responsible for the constitution of the object within the system. Constitution must be understood as a determination of the dependent parts of experience – i.e. the variable parts – by the invariable and formal “reasons.”

Unlike Kant, Cassirer to a greater extent stresses the possibility of various levels of determination, and consequently of “validity.” For example, a common sensory perception represents, compared to a dream or an hallucination, a significant step forward; though, from a scientific point of view – say physic’s – the perception remains quite sketchy and vague in content. This does not mean that perceptions as such are not objective, but rather that they are capable of being integrated at more than one level. Cassirer seems then to leave aside the strict Kantian divisions [see CAR 14.4 for the application of this intuition] between matter of sensations, form of the categories and noumena.

– Stefano Fabio Rossi, 2014

This book is on a specific approach in geology called sequence stratigraphy. This approach integrates the methods of sedimentology and stratigraphy in order to understand processes, create correlations and make predictions. It is used both academically to understand earth’s processes and commercially to e.g. locate natural resources.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

1. The intention of the author. – In his work, Cauvin proposes a new interpretation of what has been called the Neolithic Revolution. The events of that period profoundly influenced the following human evolution: the current conception concerning not only the exploitation of the environment, but also the culture and mental structures, comes from the Neolithic Revolution. Cauvin believes that the Neolithic Revolution was the result of mental attitudes and cultural events, and not primarily of ecological changes. Thus he sheds new light on the spiritual dimension.

2. The interpretation of some religious data. – During the late Paleolithic period in the area of the Levant we see the diffusion of many zoomorphic representations that illustrate different groups of animals. No dominant character is ever represented and there is never a painted divine figure. By contrast, around 9500 B.C., at the beginning of the agricultural revolution, in the same zone, in a context of hunting and gathering, we see the beginning of the production of many images of human females connected with a bull figure for all the Neolithic period. These female figures will be important for the whole Neolithic period. The humanization of art with these female representations develops throughout the following period, leading to their dominant position in the iconography of the Neolithic period. Because of this, the female figure appears to be the symbol of a divine figure with all other figures dependant on her for their meaning and stature. In many architectural complexes the woman is interpreted as a Mother Goddess and the zoomorphic figure of a bull is subordinate to her. The importance of the connection between the woman and the bull is explained by the writer in relation to the fact that this representation was developed before the birth of agriculture. Many consider the economic aspects of the agricultural revolution to be the origin of these cultural changes. Instead, Cauvin argues that this connection between woman and bull had spread before the agricultural revolution. His conclusion, based on these two figures and their association, is that there was a cultural change even before an economic revolution. In his view, something had changed in human minds. As proof of this, he refers to another image. During the tenth millennium B.C., another new image appears, representing a man in prayer with arms raised to the sky. He seems to pray to God. Cauvin thinks that this attitude identifies a lack in man who, because of this lack, seeks help from God. This image demonstrated the tragic situation of man who needs God. He reaches the conclusion that there was an existential problem that generated a cultural and intellectual change. This absence, felt by man, is transformed into a dynamic force that led man to make new images (the woman, bull and man in prayer) and to discover agriculture.

3. The criteria of interpretation. – Cauvin’s interpretation of these data seems convincing. However, the author does not specify the methodology he uses to arrive at his conclusions and we must suppose there are criteria that are not spelled out. These criteria seem to be simple. First, there is always a strict respect for the chronological order of events. The writer follows a temporal sequence of facts: the evidence is given by some representations showing a symbolic transformation, attested before the economic revolution. Secondly, the archeological finds appear frequently in that same period. There is more than one representation, for example, of the man in prayer; a substantial number of this same figure appeared where they did not exist before.

– Elisabetta Cremonesi, 2014

[A very insightful book, which goes well beyond the level of an introduction and assesses the deeper and lasting value of structural analysis. This is particularly relevant for the emphasis given in Critical Theory to the concept of structure (15).]

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2014

1. Archaeological models. A model is identified with structure, following Kroeber 1948 Anthropology [and Lévi-Strauss 1948 Anthropologie], and “historical reality is the essence of what really happened in the past in an area or within a population” (p. 14). A model is a conceptual tool: a hypothesized order of things is a structural model, and hypothesized law is an explanatory model: settlement patterns are an example (p. 15f).

2. The archaeologist, “as a specialized historian dealing with the remains of history rather than written records” (p.18).

3. Time: chronological ordering has assumed particular importance within archaeology.

4. Classification: “Are archaeological types ‘designed’ or ‘discovered’?” Chang distinguishes four types – physical (measurable, as with colors), cognitive (what ‘natives’ think), linguistic (what ‘natives’ label), behavioral (what ‘natives’ produce). So, how can the ‘native’ mind be read? By designing models and then seeing if an equivalent can be discovered (p. 22). “The interrelationship of these four typologies, and the archaeological method and technique by which these typologies can be diiscovered and differentiated, are among the most exciting issues in theoretical archaeology today and in years to come.” Chang refers to objections by Binford and Klejn by saying that the validity of the classes depends on the “collective ideology of a prehistoric people or a group within it”. He deals thereby with cognitive elements of archaeology. (p. 24)

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2013

Conceptual frameworks and taxonomies are an important part of the emerging base of knowledge on the curation of research data. We present the Data Practices and Curation Vocabulary (DPCVocab), a functional vocabulary created for specifying relationships among data practices in research, types of data produced and used, and curation roles and activities. The vocabulary consists of 3 categories - Research Data Practices, Data, and Curation - with 187 terms validated through empirical studies of scientific data practices in the Earth and life sciences. The present article covers the DPCVocab development process and examines applications for mapping relationships across the 3 categories, identifying factors for projecting curation costs and important differences in curation requirements across disciplines. As a tool for curators, the vocabulary provides a framework for charting curation options and guiding systematic administration of curation services. It can serve as a shared terminology or lingua franca to support interactions and collaboration among curators, data producers, system developers, and other stakeholders in data infrastructure and services. The DPCVocab as a whole supports both the technical and the human aspects of professional curation work essential to the modern research system.

– Publisher's abstract

– Alexandra Ion, 2020

Chase-Dunn and Hall present a study of comparisons of the largest-scale – the interactions between entire societies. They propose a shift in the object of study from individual societies as individual entities to a study of a world-system in which these societies act as parts of the whole. After considering definitions of ‘world-system’, the authors look at economic models, particularly as tied to the ‘primitivist’ and ‘modernist’ schools of thought. They posit three levels of interaction: regional interaction net, political/military interaction net, and prestige goods exchange (859-860). A typology of world-systems is proposed (868), and three hypotheses are listed dealing with core/periphery, inequality and reproduction/transformation of social structures.

– Federico Buccellati, 2015

Cherry argues that excavation is not by any means the only method of archaeology, but one among a set, and often others are more appropriate or useful, depending on a variety of factors. For example, surveys are more useful for understanding wider, regeional patterns. “Excavation, in short, is a technique that does many things well, but it cannot do everything” (p. 15).

The issue of the many as yet unpublished sites is also shortly discussed, and Cherry points out that an unpublished site can be seen as not very different from one that has been looted, since both are destroyed without any record or gain in knowledge.

– Laerke Recht, 2014

Childe discusses Montelius’ five axioms, defending them against criticism, particularly axiom 4, which posits developmental changes in Europe as arriving through diffusion from the Near East. The five axioms are dealt with within a wide set of comparisons ranging from the Near East over Anatolia to Europe. Childe’s conclusion is that the archaeological findings to date do not invalidate the five axioms, and in conclusion he lists six zones, and posits what changes could be expected hypothetically.

– Federico Buccellati, 2015

Two particular aspects are brought to the fore of discussion: Anthropology and Marxism. Both are defended as particular contributors to archaeology. Childe sees anthropology as the closest counterpart to archaeology, claiming, “my thesis is that archaeology and anthropology (or, if you will ethnography) are two complementary departments of the sciences of man related in the same way, and as mutually indispensable, as paleontology and zoology in the science of life. Both are classificatory sciences and qua sciences, both deal with abstraction.” (p. 243)

He argues against the European diffusionists (Elliot Smith, Hocart, Perry, De Mortillet) who interpreted the cultural context through a hermetic bubble which only operated by two main concepts: progress and regress. According to Childe, this synthesis assigns humans a passive role, incapable of being civilized, and attributes every attempt at social progress or development to diffusive processes. Radliffe Brown responded to this approach more clearly, “The concentration of attention in what is called the diffusion of culture traits tends to produce a conception of culture as a collection of disparate entities (the so-called traits) brought together by pure historical accident and having only accidental relation to one another” (quoted by Childe, p. 246).

Childe contends that in the endeavor of the reconstruction of the past, archeology must impose on the tenets of anthropology on material culture (functionalism and evolutionism). Further, the archaeological record on its own has the great potential to reveal crucial queries with Marxist salience like the ‘motive forces of culture’, ‘technology’ or ‘modes of production’. As a pioneer and believer of the culture-historical approach, Childe closes his argument by requesting reconciliation and internal cohesion among diffusionsim, functionalism and evolutionism.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

In this influential article, Childe lays out the characteristics of civilisation and the oldest cities. Human life and society is seen as a three-stage progression, starting with savagery, going to barbarism and finally to civilisation. They must occur in this order, and none can be skipped. Savagery and barbarism are defined purely in terms of the way food is procured (and thus appear not to be meant as value-judgements). Savages live only on wild food, while barbarians also cultivate plants and possibly breed animals. But fulltime craft specialisation is not possible in these societies, and is instead one of the markers of civilisation. In total, Childe sets up 10 criteria for civilisation. Besides craft specialisation, these include size, presence of some kind of tax, monumental public buildings, class differentiation, recording systems (i.e. writing), elaboration or arts and sciences, and importation of foreign goods.

The three-stage progressive view offered here of human life and society is a typical one. Although not explicitly judging earlier stages, it is clear that the civilisation stage is considered the highest and most desireable, associated with many positive loaded words such as innovation, security, peace, sophisticated and scientific progress.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

A generic, conclusive, brief, and integrated account of human experience! It is definitely an emblematic piece, representing a salient version of the cultural-historical approach that developed in the Anglo-Saxon tradition. Not exclusively directed at archaeologists, its generic style can easily be appreciated by a wider audience. Childe follows a chronological and topical order dealing narratively with the most memorable achievements of humankind. The nine chapters of the book tackle the most notable inventions and to what extent they impacted the evolution of man (as Childe calls it). The first chapters list several improvements, including the physical transformation of man, environmental conditions, the invention of fire and its effects on human socializing, the making of tools and the improvements of living, and the elaboration of human consciousness, mainly represented by the development of artistic behavior and the careful disposal and memory of the dead/ancestors. Chapters 5, 6, and 7 deal with two crucial moments: the Neolithic and the Urban Revolution. Childe mentions distinctive social, economic and political changes that transformed society and as a consequence life of man. Some of the changes include the invention of agriculture (cultivation of land), pastoralism and sedentary life, social clusters (namely villages), and the transition towards urban revolution, with a completely different set of settlement planning in urban areas and characterized by social hierarchies, specialized economy, writing system, monumental buildings and so on.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2014

Papers on the continued importance of Kant’s Critiques. The papers are limited to his legacy within philosophy, but on topics of great relevance to archaeology as well, including subjectivity and objectivity, the objective validity of empirical judgements, and the relation between causality and freedom.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

The paper represents an emblematic work, which gradually gained notable influence in the theoretical and methodological thought of the discipline. With a dual purpose, Clarke criticizes the historical focus of old archaeology and elaborates cogently on the exigent need for scientific and new archaeological approach able to test results and operate with a fully equipped epistemological, theoretical, methodological and interpretative framework. He puts great emphasis on the application of updated methodological tools which beyond the simple descriptive and comparative strategies shift the attention towards a highly interdisciplinary approach that benefits exceptionally from the applications of natural sciences like chemistry, geology, mathematics, statistics and so on.

The loss of innocence signifies a shift of focus from consciousness through self-consciousness to critical-self-consciousness. Clarke calls for a cohesive conceptual construction of an archaeological metaphysics which evaluates the most general categories as based especially on time and space and broken down into five theoretical and methodological operations: 1) Pre-depositional and depositional theory - dealing with the nature of relationships between specific hominid activities, social patterns and environmental factors and statistical theory; 2) Post-depositional theory - with the nature of relationshipa between samples and traces, including movement, disturbance, erosion transformation, micro-geomorphological and statistical theory; 3) retrieval theory - theory of sampling the surviving record; 4) Analytical theory - including the nature of the relationship between observations, testing analysis, selective modeling, storage and so on and 5) Interpretative theory - including the nature of the relationship between archaeological patterns established by analysis and verified by experiments and predictions about unobservable behaviors.

Salient criticism is directed at classification models of artifact taxonomy as limited only to strategies that ignore contextual information and spatial distribution of the archaeological data.

Clarke calls attention to the role of the text and the extent to which it can be intermingled with the archaeological record, always taking into serious consideration their biased status.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

This is a collection of 11 essays which are the results of a seminar held at the School of American Research in Santa Fe (New Mexico) in 1984. The authors evaluate the practice of ethnography through an interdisciplinary perspective, at the crossroads of literary studies, personal reflection, anthropology, and cultural studies. They tackle topics such as: ethnography as a form of translation, subjectivity versus objectivity, points of view, authority or the performative nature of ethnography.

– Alexandra Ion, 2020

This paper serves as an introduction both to the use of network approaches in archaeology, and to a number of articles in this same volume of Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory dealing with network theory from different backgrounds. At the end of the paper there is also a very useful glossary of terms specific to network applications.

Although network methods are not entirely new to archaeology, it is only in the last few decades they have really been taken up. Network methods often consist of (but need not be limited to) graphic visualizations of certain phenomena. Network studies are concerned with relationships, with entities represented by nodes (or dots) and the relation between them as lines (or ‘edges’). In archaeology, these can be any number of imaginable things, including trade networks, social relations, ceramic distribution etc. “The central potential of network science for archaeology is that it places relationships at the heart of our analytical technique” (p. 6).

– Laerke Recht, 2016

Some 5000 titles are assembled here, dealing even tagentially with folk classification per se. After the section on sensation, section 3 on archaeology is the shortest, with about 200 titles, the earliest dating to the 1930s (except for one dating to 1918). The titles are divided into the following categories:

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2015

[And yet. The profound impact that the sonnet still has in any case on a modern Italian is not based on a total misreading of the original. The dynamics of tradition carries in subtle ways the response a modern reader gives to the sonnet, through echoes that are very much alive even if buried in subterranean recesses of the tradition. Thus the word “gentile” is felt as being akin to the formulation one uses in a letter, where the address formula “Gentile Signor…” does not imply kindness, but nobility. Similarly, the verb “pare” is detached from the current meaning “to seem like,” and the reader will have in his sensitivity the acceptation found in other texts by Dante himself or his contemporaries, as in Dante’s verse from the Comedy “qui si parrà la tua nobilitate” (Inf. 2:9). In other words, the modern reader operates on multiple levels of culture, which reflect precisely the tradition. We may say that competence is a multi-layered dimension of sensitivity, nourished not only by daily usage, but also by different contexts of meaning.]

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2015

The introductory paper to a World Archaeology volume dedicated to the concept of ‘European’ archaeology. Attempts have been made to create more communication and integration between archaeologists and archaeological discourse in different European countries, for example through EAA (the European Association of Archaeologists) and their regular meetings. Major differences still abound, “influenced by national definitions of the role of the state, research traditions, legislation and custom with respect to private property and political views” (p. 626). These ideas are explored in the various papers in the volume.

See also Harding 2009

– Laerke Recht, 2016

Corley relates his experience of implementing the archaeological information management system Intrasis in English Heritage. He points out that adapting to change in fact turned out to be more costly than the technology itself (purchase of the necessary hardware and software). It required new procedures and compatibility.

Although the new system is digital, fully digital field recording is still unusual - and generally very impractical. Instead, a ‘hybrid’ system is in place, where ‘paper’ data from the trench is immediately (same day) added to the digital record along with other ‘born digital’ data (e.g. images from cameras, GPS data). The whole process is time-consuming and subject to resistance especially by users who may feel they lack the necessary skills, but the final result entails faster output, higher quality of data and higher compatibility across data sets - “Direct digital capture of excavations is not a simple task. It is costly, tiring, aggravating and fraught with difficulty. So why do we want to do it? Why don’t we just stick with things the way they are? Because properly structured digital datasets containing high quality data may save us all. In these times of shrinking budgets and re-aligned priorities we must all prove our value. Digital datasets that can be semantically mapped will enhance cross searching sites alongside grey literature reports (Andrew 2000; Tudhope 2011). The great potential of searching across datasets could increase the pressure for data standards (Richards 2008) and, in turn, continue to increase the quality of excavation data. We must not only demonstrate that we can capture digital data, but that the digital data we capture is of the quality that we as a discipline should expect” (p. 53).

– Laerke Recht, 2015

The authors explore the potential of Open Data in archaeology. Being digital is a prerequisite for open data; ‘data’ is often placed in opposition to interpretation, but is here understood as archaeological data from all the processes involved. Open data means increased public availability and allows ‘text-mining’, increasing searchability. Added to this is the option of Linked Open Data, which would significantly add to inter-site relations and compatibility.

– Laerke Recht, 2015

Courbin critiques New Archaeology and then outlines why archaeololgy is a distinct discipline, especially on account of its ability to establish facts. Buccellati also argues that archaeology is a discipline that has its own unique traits that make it different than other disciplines.

– Heidi Dodgen, 2013

Cowgill focusses on the cluster-object and variable association approaches respectively associated with Hodson and Spaulding. He basically attempts to marry both approaches by applying them to a particular set of data without participating in the controversial debate. According to Cowgill, the cluster-object approach as suggested by Hodson offers an effective tool for classifying nominal variables, usually made of two salient and easily distinguished attributes like shell, temper, jar, bowl and so on.

He particularly emphasizes Hodson’s definition of groups as “similar objects that exhibit internal cohesion and external isolation”. He recognizes that this definition cannot apply easily and clearly to any type of archaeological data. Moreover, if we are to measure the association of variables from various groups within a particular assemblage, we would likely face a situation where particular variables of a given group show a tendency to stay either between two groups or closer to another group. Cowgill clearly supports the first half of Hodson’s definition and claims that the internal cohesion is essential for a group and its constituent attributes. However, he implies that various ways of measurements based on the three kinds of variable (nominal, interval and ordinal) may produce effective tools for the definition of groups and the association of variables. He does recognize that the group-clustering may work very well on the classification of two attributes; in a context with multivariate attributes such an approach may create controversies.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

Cremo argues that the predominant view of time in archaeology follows a Judeo-Christian cosmological-historical concept of time which is linear and progressive. The ‘bewildering’ archaeological record is explained in these evolutionary terms. Having carefully examined the ways in which the Judeo-Christian framework underlies our thinking from the universe being understood as created in a single, unique event to humans being the last, ultimate and most superior creature in the ladder of evolution, Cremo offers an alternative from Indian Hinduism. That is not necessarily to say that one model is more ‘true’ than the other, but rather to search for the best way to explain the material remains as we find them, “I propose that total hostility to religious views of nature in science is unreasonable, especially for the modern historical sciences. Despite their pretensions to areligious objectivity, practitioners unconsciously retain or incorporate into their workings many Judeo-Christian cosmological concepts, especially concerning time, and implicitly employ them in their day-to-day work of observation and theory-building.” (p. 41).

The alternative suggested is the Puranic time concept from India. Time is here deep and cyclical. It consists of various cycles, the total of each contains billions of years (with the inhabited earth set at an age of about 2 billion years); each cycle is understood as “a progression from a golden age of peace and spiritual progress to a final age of violence and spiritual degradation” (p. 42). If taken seriously, this view of time would predict and interpret cultural remains in a very different manner than that of Judeo-Christian views. The archaeological record might in each case be ‘edited’ to fit the predominant view of time - Cremo lists specific examples how he believes this has happened with much prehistoric material to fit the Judeo-Christian linear progressive perception.

What Cremo suggests as an alternative to the common archaeological view of time appears provocative: “That is exactly what I would propose - that in the course of cyclic time, humans with a culture resembling that of modern North American Indians did in fact appear in California millions of years ago, perhaps several times” (p. 46). However, he highlights an important underlying unresolved issue, and “until modern anthropology conducts a conscious examination of the effects of its own covert, and arguably religiously derived, assumptions about time and progress, it should put aside its pretensions to universal objectivity and not be so quick to accuse others of bending facts to fit religious dogma” (p. 46).

– Laerke Recht, 2015

This article is a response to Carr 2008 and others expressing similar thoughts. Taking a less dismal view of developments than Carr, Cull introduces academia and students into the equation. He also offers a historical background in order to provide some perspective. He reminds us that the success of the internet is one that could only have taken place in a highly literate society, which is quite new in human history. What is more, reading is associated with higher status and elite members of society.

However, Cull also recognises that reading from a screen involves a process different from the printed page, “The way the brain is adapting to meet the new medium of electronic text is only beginning to become understood. Despite the fact that skimming and jumping around from place to place within text is not limited to online reading, this type of reading appears to be the most common type of reading online. Popular writers, such as Nicholas Carr (2010), continue to express concern over its potential neurological affects. […] While there is not yet enough published scientific research to make many definite conclusions about the effect of online reading on learning and the brain, it is known that the process of reading on screen tends to be cognitively different from the process of reading on paper, in terms of brain activation, the contextual environment, cognitive focus, comprehension, and reading speed.”

– Laerke Recht, 2016

This paper aims at showing how the work of Gardin can be useful for the challenges of new digital methods and tools in archaeology. It looks at two different aspects of his work, which are complimentary and reflect archaeological practice. One aspect is focussed on data, observation and ‘documentary applications’ (“archaeological documentation”). This is especially relevant for digital presentation and preservation of data, and the potential to create larger, more compatible databases. The second is what might be called either explanation or interpretation, and how archaeologists themselves reach the conclusions that they do (“archaeological reason”).

– Laerke Recht, 2016

For decades, the big science and little science dichotomy has served as a starting point for many analyses of scientific research and data practices, including studies used to inform the construction of scientific knowledge infrastructures. We challenge this dichotomy by presenting findings from longitudinal, qualitative case studies of data life cycles in two scientific domains, each centered around a large, distributed scientific collaboration. One is astronomy and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). The other is the deep subseafloor biosphere and the Center for Dark Energy Biosphere Investigations (C-DEBI). We show that some critical stages of the data life cycle in each domain unfold in big science contexts while other critical stages occur in little science contexts. Furthermore, these big and little science contexts shape each other dynamically. This challenging of the big and little science dichotomy has implications for the building of scientific knowledge infrastructures, including those supporting data management

– Publisher's abstract

Archaeology uses material data to study the past, but material remains are unable to speak for themselves. They need to be interpreted. All archaeology depends upon the logical framework used to understand data: the theory which underlies interpretation. Yet archaeological theory often seems inaccessible or even irrelevant, wrapped up in jargon and filled with obscure allusions. Written especially for those with no previous knowledge of theory, this book aims to introduce the subject in a way which is both readable and which shows its relevance, and without a specific theoretical stance. The range of theoretical views on some of the - Themes and problems most often encountered in archaeology is outlined, introducing a wide variety of concepts and approaches equally relevant to the professional or amateur archaeologist, student, or non-specialist reader of archaeological work.

– Publisher's abstract

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2016

Seemingly an appeal to a simple, shared humanity, humanism has proved over the last two hundred years one of the most contentious and divisive of concepts. It has provoked a succession of often bitter altercations and engages with some of the profoundest - Themes - philosophical, sexual, political - of modern life and thought.

Starting with the nineteenth-century educationalists and historians who coined and first defined the word, Tony Davies’ study traces the emergence of the figure of ‘Man’ in the writings of the humanists of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and the freethinkers and philosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. He also explores the issues at stake in the later encounters between humanism and a succession of intransigent antihumanisms.

Humanism is an essential guide to one of the key concepts in cultural and literary thought.

– Publisher's blurb

This book on the concept of humanism, including its historical developments, starts with an important discussion on the problems of its definition. Humanism has a broad range of meanings, with some associations to language, grammar and philology. It is and has been understood in both a negative and a positive light, “On one side, humanism is saluted as the philosophical champion of human freedom and dignity, standing alone and often outnumbered against the battalions of ignorance, tyranny and superstition. … On the other, it has been denounced as an ideological smokescreen for the oppressive mystifications of modern society and culture, the marginalisation and oppression of the multitudes of human beings in whose name it pretends to speak, even, through an inexorable ‘dialectic of enlightenment’, for the nightmare of fascism and the atrocity of total war.” (p. 5).

– Laerke Recht, 2016

This is an edited volume resulting from the colloquium that I organized, titled “Reconstructing Daily Life in the Upper Paleolithic” (held at the University of Lyon 3, in 2005). After being published in 2007, it was re-edited in 2013 as a paperback. The theme of the volume was to question the epistemological validity of our behavioral reconstructions on the basis of archaeological remains. This issue of the interpretive trajectory from material remains to the humans that made them ultimately poses the problem of what it is that prehistorians want to rediscover and reconstruct. Confrontations between numerous representatives from varied fields (tourism professionals, historians of our discipline, zooarchaeologists, technologists, rock art specialists, etc.), but all of whom are working for a better understanding of prehistoric life styles, shows that if we succeed in recovering specific elements from daily life, the social and symbolic dimensions most often remain beyond reach.

– Publisher's abstract

On pp. 21-23 there is a brief report on a successful system of projection of images over poorly preserved frescoes, carried out in 1995.

As described in the title, this paper discusses the concept of pseudoarchaeology and its current status in relation to archaeology. The stories told in pseudoarchaeology is variously described as ‘alternative narratives’, ‘the tease’, ‘imagined pasts’ or ‘invented histories’.

Derricourt points out that many of the ‘wilder’ theories originally come from recognised and respected archaeologists, and that the boundary between ‘them and us’ become blurred. Postmodern influences in archaeology have also tended to promote multivocality and acceptance of a broader range of narratives. However, these ‘alternative’ narratives can include those of strong political or ethnical agendas, and as the commentators add at the end, this is one place where such narratives can become dangerous and where archaeologists might be said to have an ethical duty to challenge them.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

A penetrating overview that treats the significant development of the archaeological thought established in the Syro-Palestinian environment. During the 1970s, “New Archaeology” radiated its influence to this part of the world, creating an interesting marriage between the traditional and the American anthropological approach. Dever notes several developments occurring during this period, including the multidisciplinary orientation, consideration of environmental factors, recognition of the value of ethnographic parallels, employment of general system theory, scientific method with its hypothesis testing, adaptation of behavioral processualist and so on. However, this plethora of queries only remained constrained in a static framework that never addressed the evolutionary agenda. This transformation was more clearly noticed in areas of study that did not involve theoretical evaluations, such as environmental studies, ceramic typology, stratigraphy or even addressing queries with an analytical emphasis. This interaction, however, remained inefficient when issues of religious, ethnic, long term changes and philosophy came into play.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

This ‘alternative’ history of archaeology places the discipline and its practitioners in their historical, political and ideological context. This is extremely useful for understanding the development of archaeology and its practice in different countries. Archaeology is seen in the broadest sense possible, with the inclusion of prehistorians, art historians, antiquarians and geologists. Nationalism, colonialism and empiricism are demonstrated to be strong factors in archaeological thought, providing more or less explicit agendas. Archaeology thus does not exist in a value-free vacuum separate from the rest of the world and historical events. Its history also underlines the fact that excavation was not always central.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

Account of the Toltec city of Tula in Mexico, and general background on Toltec culture.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

In the dedication (p. IX), the author refers to an earlier time when he “still dared to describe this book as a Critique of Historical Reason.” The effort to construct the “Geisteswissenshaft” as an autonomous science (e.g., p. XVIII) speaks to the same concern I have voiced for archaeology.

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2013

Dingli looks at the difference between Locke’s and Grotius’ approaches to ‘unclaimed’ property; while Locke states that unclaimed property can be taken by an individual, Grotius claims that such property can be used by an individual but remains in the public domain. She considers three conventions in this light: Malta 1992, UNESCO 1973, and European Landscape 2000. She ends with a consideration of stewardship.

– Federico Buccellati, 2015

Acting as an introduction to two issues of the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, this article situates the concept of agency in archaeology. Agency can be both a theory and a method, and care should be taken not to make the concept so broad as to become analytically meaningless. The authors advocate ‘middle-range’ approaches which can link the specifics with general theories.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

Paper focussing on the technological aspect of ‘open archaeology’, particularly looking at free and open source software (FOSS). Echoing the sentiment in Beck & Neylon, Ducke also argues for the publication of ‘raw’ data along with methodology and source codes used in the software in order for others to adequately assess the conclusions.

This paper is part of a World Archaeology volume dedicated to digital archaeology. See Lake 2012.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

See Chang 1978 “Historical Relity”.

If anything, this book represents one of the few comprehensive attempts in classification. Dunnell succeeds in elaborating in the finest details the conceptual framework of a classification system. Without doubt, this work is a synthesis of the concepts of classification, from the most basic to highly complicated matters regarding the relationship between classes, the most effective classification for a given situation or set of data, and to what extent one can derive interpretations.

Along with a few other archaeologist of the 1970s, Dunnell aims for the construction of a scientific framework in archaeological research. On the one hand by calling into question the antiquated methods of the Old Archaeology and on the other by offering a highly innovative focus on scientific research capable of testable results and cogent explanations.

Even beyond the limits of the archaeological discipline itself, Dunnell constructs an order of concepts integrally organized within the so-called systematics defined as “a set of propositions, concepts and operations used to create units for any scientific discipline” and attempts to give to research in prehistory a formal sense. Indeed, classification comes to the center of attention, treated as a crucial aspect which assists both the thinking and any operation undertaken with the archaeological data. According to Dunnell, classification, if undertaken cogently, may become a potential and somehow exclusive tool in the understanding a given context. From the formation of the query to the derivation of interpretations, archaeological research is conceptually organized in a dual framwork: Ideational - things that have no objective existence (ideas) and Phenomenological - things and events easily observed. Given this, our thinking and actions in archaeological research are likely to deal constantly with the two; our ideas, assumptions, understanding and background concerning a given matter and our approach in the search and analysis of the phenomena and the objective context of things. Both ideational and phenomenological research avenues are conceptually placed into a well-integrated operational scheme comprised of theory, method, technique and hypothesis.

In the given context, classification as a process widely applied to any type of data; matter or subject is considered as a key element with the potential to arrange ideas, things, artifacts, buildings and so on. However, Dunnell notes some important limitations of classification as a practical and conceptual tool: 1) Classification is arbitrary, intuitive, and cannot include the totality of a given set of data; 2) Classification is a matter of quality as simple as “you cannot count something until you have something to count”, necessarily or unnecessarily creates definable quantities, it is useless without groups and meaningless without classes; 3) Classification states relations only within and between units in the same system; 4) Classification units have primacy over labels and 5) Classification units have primacy over structuring models.

Archaeologists and prehistorians should pay serious attention to the evaluation criteria upon which a classification system is valid. Dunnell synthesizes four aspects: the selection of field; selection of a particular scale at which classes are formed; discriminatory features for the creation of classes and selection from among those discriminated features that are considered definitive.

Two kinds of classification are defined: 1) Paradigmantic classification - where every class is drawn from the same dimensions (dimension being a set of mutually exclusive alternative features). This kind is likely to derive objective results once the field and the level of organization are well defined and 2) Taxonomic classification - organized by a hierarchical structure, not based at all on dimensional and distinctive features, produces potential for ambiguity, depends highly on significance, and must firstly rely on paradigmatic classification.

The descriptive and explanatory background on classification is then followed by a whole set of statistical operations which somehow have the potential to indicate the significance of the classes, any potential relationship, distribution and so on.

The focus on prehistoric data and especially artifacts is not very different from that of Rouse.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

Dunnell begins with a brief outline of three prevalent archaeological paradigms: Culture History, Cultural Reconstructionism and Processual Archaeology. His approach expands on some concepts in Processual Archaeology, focusing on Archaeological Units, Evolutionary Archaeology, and Style and Function in an Evolutionary Context. It is this evolutionary model that Dunnell wants to expand within the framework of Processual Archaeology, analyzing functional traits with some of the same approaches as those used in genetic studies, while stylistic traits can be studied through stochastic processes.

– Federico Buccellati, 2015

This is indeed an interesting paper. It mostly concerns the theoretical dynamics and scientific research of archaeology, attempting to reveal the purest and original emphasis of the field. Dunnell focuses on the philosophy of science and especially criticizes the lack of precision and completeness within archaeological theory. He calls for a nomothetic character of the discipline and its great potential to dig through the simple and shallow borrowing of other fields, which he claims have not contributed to “the building of a cohesive and scientific theory”. The epistemological character is equally posed concerning the inductive and deductive premises. Theory in itself is placed between the phenomenological and ideational distinction. Moreover, aspects like explanation and prediction must receive a greater deal of attention in any formulation. Dunnell perceives theory as a tool of investigation for the understanding of the phenomena in a universe that is not homogeneous and where the rate of change over time plays a fundamental role. Particular criticism is directed at the traditional approach, understood within the boundaries of common sense which never managed give to the field a scientific focus. Archaeology in itself is viewed as a social and scientific field where the inductive and deductive premises are strictly integrated and theory becomes an inseparable nexus of the empirical treatment of the data.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

This is a collection of papers on digital archaeology and a variety of computer applications in archaeological practice, from the 2012 CAA proceedings (Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology). The papers discuss the theoretical background of digital/computational archaeology, methodology, and present many examples and case studies. These include simulation and virtual reconstruction, digital recording and implementation in the field, predictive modelling, and attempts at and problems of creating broader digital systems that synchronise and standardise data in order to facilitate inter-site queries/comparisons.

For more comments on individual papers, see Huggett 2013, Corley 2013, Carver and Lang 2013, and Costa et al. 2013

– Laerke Recht, 2015

Essentially seeing archaeologists as ‘cultural anthropologists of the past’, Earle reviews the history of the relationship between archaeology and cultural anthropology, including the divergent American and European traditions. The two disciplines are understood as sharing common concerns and as being part of the same endeavour. Earle advocates a dynamic (but not necessarily harmonious) relationship between the two, and in-depth training of archaeologists in cultural anthropology.

– Laerke Recht, 2014

Edgeworth presents a collection of papers that in each their way apply ethnographic method to archaeological practice. This results in a variety of - Themes, from how excavation makes archaeologists through the social ‘games’ played and almost satirical accounts of archaeological reason to how experts (the archaeologists) interact with the public or local communities.

Ethnography is thus neither equated with archaeology nor used as a tool to further interpretation of the archaeological remains, but instead aimed at how archaeology is acted out. The logic is that “If ethnography or ethnoarchaeology are appropriate methods through which to study material practices of the Dinka or the Inuit or the Mehinacu, it is equally appropriate to use such methods to study archaeological practices. If a general theory of material culture is relevant to the material culture of exotic societies on the other side of the world - if it is truly general - it should be relevant to the analysis of our material culture too (the trowel, the context sheet, the camera, the computer). If Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of practice is to be applied to an understanding of human action and material culture in the past, it should also be applied to our own present actions in constituting knowledge of that past.” (p. xiii)

For more comments, see individual entries of Yarrow 2006, van Reybrouck and Jacobs 2006, Roveland 2006, Carman 2006, Erdur 2006, and Karlsson and Gustafsson 2006.

– Laerke Recht, 2014

Excavation is here seen as a core method, distinctive and at the very heart of the discipline, “necessary for an archaeologist to gain some experience and mastery of it in order to ‘be’ an archaeologist. Something of the essence of archaeology really is bound up with excavation, and not just in terms of its image in popular culture.” (p. 44).

– Laerke Recht, 2014

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2016

In biology, the concept of “punctuated equilibrium” applies to periods of stasis in genetic evolution, periods when a balance is held among the elements that are operative at that moment. [This can be seen as an image of the tensionality that characterizes the archaeological record in both its physical dimension and its formalization, especially digital. I also use the term “punctuated continuum” to refer to the graduality of competences and interests in the target of a public outreach effort.]

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2015

– Giorgio Buccellati

Using an alternative style of narrative, Erdur provides an account of an ethnographers encounter with excavation practices. The essay is constructed as a provocative, almost satirical tale, which effectively highlights the arbitrary and constructed nature of excavation, and the devaluing of uncertainty that takes place. A small excerpt will serve as an example:

“Finds go to the museum,” he said, “you know, the handsome ones. The rest - nobody really knows what to do with them. We keep them here because, what else really, we have to keep them - and also this project has the money for storage like this. Some local excavations end up burying this kind of stuff back into the ground.”

“Check this out! Isn’t it pretty!” shouts Red-tulip-of-many-a-pit pointing at the ground, as she stands up from the spot she’s just crouched into a minute ago. (Everything blends into everything else here: basins, walls, the morning, ovens, my thoughts, yesterday, their words . . . )

“What did you find?” asks Just-working-for-the-white-man-here, closing in toward her.

“Not sure really . . . but I’m following it.”

– Laerke Recht, 2014

Digital Archaeology is a unique edited work addressing the changing and growing role of digital technologies in all aspects of archaeology and heritage management. Exploring the wide potential of IT across the discipline, this book goes beyond the prevailing notion that computers are merely a methodological tool, and considers their influence on the very nature of archaeological study.

Blending rigorous archaeological theory with the extensive practical knowledge of professionals in the field, Digital Archaeology is a highly accessible text that shows and discusses the ways in which computing can be holistically incorporated into archaeology. The book discusses elements of archaeological theory and reveals how computers can be used to reintegrate theoretical questions into the application of field work and analysis.

Beginning with a history of the growth of computing within the field, the book goes on to look at examples of how and why different technologies have been implemented into archaeological theory and method. It includes GIS, virtual reality modelling, internet publishing and archiving, and on-site digital recording using such examples as the integrated digital recording of the Ferrybridge Chariot and other case studies from around the world. This volume also discusses ways in which technology can now be used in normal excavations and how this affects the study of archaeology as a whole, from planning to publication. -

– Publisher's blurb

In the introduction, the editors emphasise that digitality in archaeology should not be seen as a separate field, but as an approach to archaeology. One where technology and technological possibilites are an intergrated part of both practice and theory in archaeology. As such, it also transforms the way we do archaeology, what can be done, and the kinds of questions and answers that are possible. The transformation occurs even at the earliest stages of field recording and data management, while digital developments in virtual reality and dissemination changes the way archaeology can engage with the public.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

Did aliens build the pyramids? Do all the world’s civilizations owe a debt of gratitude to a single super-civilization in ancient times? Was Egypt the home of magicians? Is there a fantastic body of ancient wisdom awaiting discovery, which will help solve the world’s problems? These and other scenarios are thrown up by purveyors of what is often dubbed “alternative,” “fringe,” or “popular” archaeology and ancient history. In reality, such work is properly called pseudoarchaeology since it is a muddled imitation of the real thing.

In this collection of stimulating and engaging essays, a diverse group of scholars, scientists, and writers consider the phenomenon of pseudoarchaeology from a variety of perspectives. They contemplate what differentiates it from real archaeology; its defining characteristics; the reasons for its popular appeal and how television documentaries contribute to its popularity; how nationalist agendas can warp genuine archaeology into a pseudo-version; and the links between pseudoarchaeology and other brands of false history and pseudoscience. Case studies include surveys of esoteric Egypt and the supposedly mystical Maya, Nazi pseudoarchaeology, and ancient pseudohistory in modern India.

– Publisher's blurb

In this passionately argued (and at times strongly worded) collection of essays, we are shown case studies of how pseudoarchaeology is practised and causes real damage. Different aspects are explored, moving beyond conspiracy fanatics and television producers to the (ab)use of archaeology in nationalistic, ideological and racist agendas.

In the Foreword, Colin Renfrew defines pseudoarchaeology as, “the misrepresentation of the past misusing the material evidence of that past”. (p. xii). Elaborating on this, Fagan attempts to delimit pseudoarchaeology by defining and contrasting it with archaeology. The main convergences are found in the absolute importance of context and willingness to adapt theories depending on (new) data in archaeology, while pseudoarchaeology disregards context and is characterised by inflexible theories. Pseudoarchaeology further involves a deliberate misleading and ignoring of some data [‘deliberate’ being the operative word here - this may be difficult to define and identify].

– Laerke Recht, 2016

– Giorgio Buccellati

– Giorgio Buccellati

Flannery and Marcus attempt to define, in medias res, what cognitive archaeology is, looking particularly at the aspects of cosmology, religion, ideology and iconography. They attempt to show how cognitive archaeology is not to be understood as the domain of “armchair archaeologists” but rather is a response to the tendency in subsistence-settlement archaeology to dehumanize the interpretation of the archaeological record.

– Federico Buccellati, 2015

Four different archaeologists meet during unforeseen circumstance and begin a discussion on an easily imagined topic: archaeology. The characters are given provocative nick names: The Born-Again Philosopher (an overly tired field archaeologist who at a certain point shifts the focus to the philosophy of archaeology); The Child of the Seventies (a young tenure who lives with some pragmatic devices, and succeeds in borrowing original ideas of other scholars and then publishing them as his own); The Old Timer (the real character, a newly retired university professor who during his career took two aspects seriously: field archaeology and interpretations with cultural salience); and Flannery.

The story is indeed a fiction. In Flannery’s imagination, this clash of generations is involved in a fine and sophisticated discussion that addresses burning issues that archaeology was experiencing during the 1980s. The gamma of discussion ranges from archaeological ethics, to philosophical, theoretical and practical subjects. Flannery sees the focus of the new generation as led by a blind ambition for quick success and a rewarding position. Moreover, the obsession with becoming successful while criticizing the work of others without remorse and reflection, the enclosure within the university walls, and the lack of willingness to get a grasp of the data in the field all indicate the bad tendencies of the discipline. To illustrate this better, he refers to one of Schiffer’s accounts (Schiffer 1978, p. 247): “I feel free to pursue the study of laws whenever it leads. I do not feel the need to break the soil periodically in order to reaffirm my status as archaeologist.”

Theoretical archaeology (anthropological archaeology) is devoted to very limited boundaries. Over more than 20 years, the so-called problem-oriented approach in archaeology developed a particularistic research strategy only capable of seeing particles but not the entire complexity of the context. The inappropriate and somehow isolated focus of archaeological philosophy is even more exaggerated. More than the production of general laws and the models of predictable behavior, the deep need to also know how to collect and assess the artifacts, structures, organic, environmental and other types of data is a highly desirable aspect.

Behind the wise words of the Old Timer, Flannery argues for a dynamic approach that does not ignore the tenets of traditional archaeology while treating the wholeness of culture. Theory is also an indispensable tool but always and only when intertwined with the data, context and dirt.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

Despite seemingly large theoretical differences between archaeological approaches (e.g. processual vs. post-processual archaeology), Fogelin shows the same underlying principles of reasoning are used. This ts what he calls ‘inference to the best explanation’, understood as “given our data and background beliefs, we infer what would, if true, provide the best of the competing explanations we can generate of those data” (quoting Lipton, p. 604). Important for archaeology, Fogelin adds, “The ability of an explanation to explain a wide variety of data makes it more likely to be true”. While this manner of reasoning is already widely used in archaeology, Fogelin suggests improvements by providing clear criteria for what makes a compelling explanation (and the more compelling an explanation, the more likely it is to be correct). These criteria can also be used to detect ‘bad’ explanations, as even the best explanation can in fact be bad. Thus, a compelling argument might have one or more of the following “virtues”: 1) generality, 2) modesty, 3) refutability, 4) conservatism, 5) simplicity, and 6) addresses multiple foils.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

An extensive discussion (with ample documentation from archaic Greek, Serbo-Croatian and Old English traditions) of the formal mechanisms that can be assumed to have governed oral poetry. It is important in two respects for our interests. (1) The analysis of oral traditions explores the survival into “post-traditional” texts of oral themes and expressive mechanisms (“post-traditional” texts being defined as “the kind of work whose meaning derives chiefly from a single text created by a single author and specifically without dependence on an oral tradition”, p. 6 n.12). This is in explicit contrast with Derrida’s insistence on language being ordained to writing. (2) In contrast, structural conditioning of expression depends on “traditional referentiality,” i.e., on the coherence of a vast cultural context that is part and parcel of individual expression: a deeper understanding of these structures is indispensable in order to arrive at a fuller appreciation of the intended meaning.

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2014

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

A nonconformist voice that deals with the implications of the understanding of knowledge and its hermeneutics. Foucault offers a vibrant approach that critically tackles the broadly defined emphasis of the humanities, reconfiguring knowledge into its deepest and most comprehensive labyrinths. The book constructs a methodological framework equipped with leading concepts of thinking and formulating. Archaeology is addressed as its own premise, but is evoked as Focault’s own concept of archaeology, which infers a methodological scheme which systemically orders our thoughts, levels thinking, object and regularities of discourse, and the reach of statements. The criticism mostly focuses on the premises of structuralism, implying a multidimensional level of query and research.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

A significant contribution that stresses how “the digital humanities must think digitality critically, first of all by questioning the assumptions of rationality that are at the foundation of digitality. The model(s) of rationality on which digital technologies are based cannot be ‘imported’ unquestioningly into the humanities. … Indeed, on the one hand the digital humanities are the ideal place to investigate the mutual co-constitution of technology and the human. The originary connection between technology and language places technology at the core of the humanities. On the other hand, the specificities of singular encounters between instances of digital technologies and instances of the humanities must be investigated” (p. 16f.). This conclusion is based on a detailed and insightful review of the work by Stiegler (pp. 6-8, 13-16), Derrida (pp. 8-10) and Leroi-Gourhan (pp. 10-13), all of which parallels closely the point of view developed in CAR.

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2015

– Giorgio Buccellati

Includes Minard’s statistical graphics of Napoleon’s 1812 campaign in Russia.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

Fritz and Plog take a positivist approach to archaeological data, attempting to formulate a framework in which universal laws are formulated, tested and used in a deductive manner. This framework is in contrast to the empiricist method proposed by B.K. Schwartz, among others, and draws on the positivist model for scientific explanation proposed by Hempel & Oppenheim. The example they give is that of the classification of archaeological artifacts as explanation.

– Federico Buccellati, 2015

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2016

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2016

Clear and thoughtful description of the concept of agency as applied in archaeology. While acknowledging the difficulty of an exact definition of the term, Gardner explains (human) agency as a kind of active involvement in the world. When applied, this usually refers to more specific situations or things.

Agency is often seen in opposition to - or more accurately, as parallel to - the concept of structure. This is where structure is understood as society, its organisations and standards at large, where individuals and their actions are easily lost. Humans as social actors instead reflect this aspect of more individual influence (more or less consciously).

For a more in-depth understanding of the concept and surrounding debate, which is partly tied to broader theoretical debates and trends in archaeology, Gardner provides a history of how ‘agency’ has been applied and understood, both in archaeology and in the humanities in general.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

Challenging the view that scientific research and archaeological practice is objective and neutral, Gero demonstrates that this is also closely associated with a ‘masculine’ research style which involves more clearly delineated hierarchies and a binary logic that obliterates the ambiguous or not easily classified. Part of the illusion of total objectivity can be found in the way archaeological data are published in formal accounts, in the sense that a ‘sterile’ image is usually presented, removing people, tools and excess dirt from excavation photographs, for example, thereby giving the idea that people were not in fact at every step part of the process of creating the image.

The use of binary, structural ideologies essentially simplify data in order to clarify, and this is particularly relevant to the way data are recorded and presented and have consequences for what is ultimately learned and remembered.

– Laerke Recht, 2014

A short but excellent overview of archaeological theory. The author is very thoughtful in his assessment of the field, and proceeds with a style that makes the explanation of even difficult concepts accessible to first-timers, and yet is engaging for the professional because of his insight and wit. The argument flows naturally, and the role of individual major figures in the field is presented within the narrative so that they appear as protagonists of a coherent story, rather than as a necessary tribute to bibliographical completeness. An example of this is the treatment of middle range theory (pp. 74-76) and the way in which figures like Braudel (pp. 65-68) or Lévi-Strauss (pp. 98-101) are set in a context that brings out most clearly their contribution to archaeology. There is a central focus to the book that makes it almost more of an interpretive essay than a simple review of information, and that is the interaction between processual and post-processual archaeology, and ways in which this interaction marks the way for the future.

[It is significant that even in a work as carefully thought through as this one, the theoretical dimension of stratigraphic analysis is completely missing. The theory here illustrated is exclusively the theory of inference, nothing is said about the theory of observation.]

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2013

Beginning with an introduction to logical positivism, this work goes on to give an account of New Archaeology and its inherent problems. The first two chapters of the book form the background against which Guy Gibbons sets his account of New Archaeology. This was a movement, which found favour with a significant number of archaeologists during the 1960s and early 1970s to make archaeology truly scientific. Traditional archaeological practice was felt to lack the power to explain archaeological data. Limiting itself to the recovery, description and classification of such data, it was little more than curio-collecting antiquarianism. Yet, the author argues, New Archaeology was doomed to failure, for several reasons. He reveals its flaws, and considers the extent to which its successor, Realist Archaeology, is better equipped to reveal the structures and processes of past societies which have produced the archaeological record. Dr Gibbon concludes with a discussion of a series of general questions concerning the history and methodology of archaeology and its relationship to other sciences

– Publisher's summary

Anthony Giddens has been in the forefront of developments in social theory for the past decade. In The Constitution of Society he outlines the distinctive position he has evolved during that period and offers a full statement of a major new perspective in social thought, a synthesis and elaboration of ideas touched on in previous works but described here for the first time in an integrated and comprehensive form. A particular feature is Giddens’s concern to connect abstract problems of theory to an interpretation of the nature of empirical method in the social sciences. In presenting his own ideas, Giddens mounts a critical attack on some of the more orthodox sociological views. The Constitution of Society is an invaluable reference book for all those concerned with the basic issues in contemporary social theory.

– Publisher's summary

This collection of essays is a look at the emergence of language in evolutionary terms. As the authors note in the introduction, “[s]trictly speaking, we do not have extant examples of either primitive language or primitive brain tissue” (p. vii). However, we have analogies, and steps before and after, and we therefore do have the possiblity of attempting to reconstruct how language came to be in a biological / adaptive sense.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

– Giorgio Buccellati

A very specific case study of the relationship between archaeology and politics, especially nationalist movements. The focus is on American involvement in archaeology in Iran, Turkey, Egypt and Iraq in the two decades following WWI.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

This paper is an introduction to a volume on the relationship between objects and people. The concept of object biographies is in focus, where the entire ‘life history’ of an objects is attempted, from its creation through multiple uses and a range of ‘owners’ and a possible ending (so far) in a museum display. Things can thus change meaning and function. The concept is closely related to those of materiality and agency, with objects understood not as simple, purely utilitarian, but as influencing humans and human behaviour. As the authors put it, “The central idea is that, as people and objects gather time, movement and change, they are constantly transformed, and these transformations of person and object ar tied up with each other” (p. 169).

– Laerke Recht, 2016

The disciplines of archaeology and anthropology have, since their beginnings, influenced and informed each other. Chris Gosden charts and analyses their changing relationship, and provides a valuable and much-needed introduction to the theories and methods of these two inter-related subjects. This volume covers the historical relationship and contemporary interests of archaeology and anthropology. It takes a broad historical approach, setting the early history of the disciplines within the colonial period during which the Europeans encountered and attempted to make sense of many other peoples. It shows how the subjects are linked through their interest in kinship, economics and symbolism, and discusses what each contribute to debates about gender, material culture and globalism in the post-colonial world.

This book is unique in its survey of both anthropology and archaeology. This dual consideration is necessary as each discipline has continuously influenced the other. Together, anthropology and archaeology can inform us of the full variability of life, past and present.

Anthropology and Archaeology is an indispensable guide to each discipline for students or researchers studying archaeology, anthropology, or both subjects.

– Publisher's blurb

Another contribution to the archaeology-anthropology debate, also containing a historical account.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

A purely preliminary attempt, as Greenberg admits, at the application of quantification in the typology of language. In fact, the content addresses the implication of quantification only partially, showing greater concern with the history of classification and the approaches that have impacted this issue the most. The two main methodological agendas (comparative and typological linguistics) are discussed. Heavy criticism is directed at the historic-genetic method, seen as a strategy which leaves no room for further evaluations and classifications. The racial classification and classifications of the nineteenth century in general are treated in a similar fashion, where three types are identified: isolating, agglunative and inflective.

Greenberg sees the lack of taxonomic implications in the field as shocking and, together with Charles Hockett, attempts to remedy this absence. The paper considers notable efforts like those of Von Humbolt, Schlegel and Sapir, but relies on an inductive quantitative scheme that concludes with a typological index comprised of ten piers: (1) M/W - index of synthesis; (2) A/J - index of aggulutination; (3) R/W - compounding index; (4) - D/W derivational index; (5) I/W - gross inflectional index; (6) P/W - prefixal index; (7) S/W - suffixal index; (8) O/N - isolational index; (9) Pi/N - pure inflectional index; and (10) Co/N - concordial index.

The narratives interfere rather heavily with implication of this index in a particular language. However, the attempt must be appreciated for its inductive focus applied to the typology of languages.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

This essay primarily discusses the Critique of Pure Reason and Kant’s criticism and rejection of previous theories concerning synthetic a priori judgements. This includes a confrontation with other thinkers’ arguments about the knowledge of metaphysical entitites such as the soul, the world and God (Kant’s Dialectic).

– Laerke Recht, 2016

An informative encyclopaedia article that summarizes the European material in Guidi 2000. It gives ample space to the development of the first human settlements in the Balkan Peninsula, and it stresses especially two types of data: (1) the size of some V/IV millennium B.C. settlements, which can reach up to 250, and in one case, even 450 hectares (in Romania and the Ukraine); and (2) some surprising architectural features, such as protective palisades and moats. By the III and II millennium B.C. there develops an impressive network of villages; the pile dwelling in northern Italy (from the II millennium B.C.) exhibits a remarkable regularity in the arrangement of houses, even though the size of the settlement is more modest. By the first millennium, several settlements in Italy develop proto-urban characteristics, with Rome reaching some 100, and Como some 150 hectares.

[The author is cautious in drawing inferences from the data, e. g., by placing in quotes references to “cult” places or to “prestige” objects. More importantly, he spells out clearly the presuppositions that lead to speak, for instance, of the growth of pastoralism or the increase in “conflictuality.”]

– Giorgio Buccellati, Camillo Bartolini, 2014

Rather than a pre-established agenda that assume an organic connection between archaeology and anthropology, archaeology must maintain an autonomous focus. Gumerman and Phillips criticize the exaggerated intrusion of formal explanatory or descriptive models (Read and LeBlanc 1978) into the discipline, which create evasiveness between the data and the models. They state that, “in our opinion, the actual application of these models has generally been trivial or fairly crude. Computer packages and philosophers of science have been ‘used’ in the most mechanical sense; system theory, ecology and other disciplines have been raided for concepts that are used out of any warranted generalizing context.”

They evaluate the active involvement of other parameters and aim to situate the discipline on a practical ground. The intention is not to ignore or exclude other fields with evident potential in archaeological research. Instead, both authors see the discipline pursue an interdisciplinary road that employs methods, techniques and practices from other fields. Several examples show the application of fields like zoology, botany, the use of the ecotone concept, and locational analysis illustrates efficient cases intertwined with archaeological data. Gumerman and Phillips argue for a more significant role of archaeological techniques and also greater communication between Classics, Near Eastern studies and Art History. Anthropological theory should not be neglected, but topic-related subjects that most benefit archaeology (e.g. economics, psychology, geography) must be given priority.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

With a focus on western European vs middle European archaeology, Harding discusses some of the differences in archaeological theory and practice in European countries. He also notes the predominant use of English for any discourse that transcends national boundaries. Although regrettable, this does provide a venue for communication and sharing of ideas.

See also Cooney 2009.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

Casting a critical eye upon the position described in his previous book, Superstructuralism, Richard Harland claims that structuralist and post-structuralist approaches to language are fatally limited by their focus upon single words. Instead he offers the alternative of a syntagmatic approach, arguing that the nature of meaning is radically transformed in the movement from single words to sentences. The effect of combining words grammatically is seen to be more dramatic than any existing theory (European or Anglo-American) has yet recognized. The wide breadth of coverage in the book takes in post-Chomskyan linguistics, deconstruction, Analytic and speech-act views of language. Harland challenges the very foundation of recent language theory, opening up a range of novel options for literary criticism, linguistics and philosophy.

Moving on from his previous book, Superstructuralism, Richard Harland argues that the focus on single words in the structuralist theory of language is its key weakness and that the next advance beyond post-structuralism depends upon replacing word-based with syntagm-based theories. Harland lucidly develops a new syntagmatic theory which shows that the effect of combining words grammatically can transform the very nature of meaning. The wide breadth of coverage in the book covers both post-Chomskyan linguistics and Derrida, and sets up an opposition to analytic and speech-act theories of language. By presenting a systematic critique and counter-proposal, Harland challenges the very foundation of recent literary and linguistic theory.

– Two published abstracts

A brief but explicit background on stratigraphy and stratigraphic sequence. It focuses on the explanation and analysis of stratigraphy, offering clear definitions and schemes that help understanding and interpretation.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

Harris offers a brief and explicit overview. The few pages of the paper provide a clear emphasis on four designated laws of archaeological stratigraphy: the law of superposition, the law of original horizontality, the law of original continuity and the law of stratigraphic succession.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

The book elaborates in detail the stratigraphic principles set out in previous papers. After a history of the background of stratigraphy in geology and its development in archaeology, Harris explains his four principle of stratigraphy. This culminates in his introduction and explanation of the so-called Harris Matrix - the diagram used to illustrate stratigraphic relations between units. He then goes on to practical concerns about best ways to record stratification, including best kinds of plans and section drawings (based on his recommendation of the single context recording system), and how to create correlations and phasing.

– Laerke Recht, 2017

Review andsummary of Harris’ own work on stratigraphic principles (explicitly referred to as a revolution in archaeological stratigraphy) and the use of the Harris Matrix, and the status today.

– Laerke Recht, 2017

One branch within archaeology has become generally known as ‘archaeology of the contemporary past’. It applies archaeological methods to the present, but some of the characteristic parts of archaeology are difficult to use, including excavation. The object of study is also not removed in the way that it usually is. This has led to what the author sees as an identity crisis and exaggerated continued justification for the discipline by its practitioners. To mitigate this, he suggests a move away from the centrality of excavation towards surface assemblages. Harrison thinks that the separation of past and present into an us vs them, the past as ‘other’ is a problem resulting from modernity, and one that we urgently need to move away from. As part of this, archaeology should not be defined by excavation. This way, archaeology can be about both the present and the future.

The ideas presented here do not align with the understanding of archaeology in CAR, and the concept of broken traditions.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

Commenting in depth on De Saussure’s book (see De Sassure 1972), Harris highlights some points that are of central importance for our interest in proposing a linguistic model for archaeological analysis.

(1) The object of study is not a given, but is rather created by the discipline (hence the definition of linguistics follows its application): “at no level of linguistic observation are simple autonomous units to be found” nor is there ever “just a single dimension or a single criterion involved in identifying such units” (p. 15); therefore, in Saussure’s words, “it is the viewpoint adopted which creates the object” (pp. 14, 29)

(2) How does linguistics relate to semiology? Harris proposes that Saussure introduced semiology in order to free linguistics from its subservience to philology and historical phonetics and to establish it as a model for the social sciences (p. 30f).

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2013

The foundational statement about dsitributional analysis in linguistics, building on Bloomfield and Sapir. The book is a highly technical linguistic study, but it is relevant for our purposes because of the clarity with which the basic principles are stated and the rigor with which they are applied to the data. Extensive Excerpts from the book give the major pertinent statements on this topic.

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2014

An exhaustive substantive treatment of a well defined corpus, with important methodological considerations.

– Giorgio Buccellati

A thoughtful evaluation of the two traditions in archaeology: Old and New World. Hawkes simply wonders to what extent we understand the archaeological evidence and what types of inquiries are to be challenged. Features like the historicism and text-aid known as leading concepts of the Old World are faced with the anthropological and ethnographic agendas of the New World. Hawkes introduces the so-called “conjunctive approach”, arguing for a cohesive agenda which takes into serious consideration the stratigraphic facts, text, ethnography, environment, ecology, natural resources and so on. Similar to other approaches of this time, the culture system remains at the center of attention. To this day, the most valuable and somehow discussed argument remains the introduction of the ladder of inference. Hawkes constructs a hierarchical system of classification which indicates the increasing scale of difficulty for four aspects in the archaeological record. From the easiest to the most difficult, Hawkes recounts the investigation of techniques, technology and subsistence and economics as easier issues to deal with and two other aspects like the socio-political institutions and religions as highly challenging in any stratigraphic context or dataset.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

An useful overview of classification and typology. It focuses on the emic types and how ethnographic case studies contribute to the understanding and designation of a meaningful typology. The first part offers a brief historical overview of the research history of classification and typology, establishing the terminological clarification between the two.

The second part discusses the emic types from ethnographic cases, highlighting the obstacles one encounters while deriving the emic-etic analogy: 1) language and terminology - a given category of object depending on function may be defined with various terms in different cultures, an aspect which has great impact on the designation of variables and in the construction of etic typology; 2) the particularities of an artifact tied to a separate term must be associated with a special function with social, religious, ideational meaning; 3) the emic categories vary within communities according to the specific role given from the individuals that produce them; 4) most commonly, behaviors and actions are not explained by people. The scientific queries remain inexplicable in the situations where artisans or apprentices make an artifact during normal routine, never receiving any formal schooling or sophisticated expression and 5) most attitudes and traditions are acquired by imitation. Due to such phenomena, their explanation and typology may remain enigmatic.

Beyond the above limitations, however, Hayden values greatly the potential of correlations between ethnographic emic types for etic purposes. This analogy may result in insights if the parameters of the data are carefully selected, and the special attention an individual or artisan dedicates to particular attributes of an artifact is taken into consideration.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

In this age of DNA computers and artificial intelligence, information is becoming disembodied even as the “bodies” that once carried it vanish into virtuality. While some marvel at these changes, envisioning consciousness downloaded into a computer or humans “beamed” Star Trek-style, others view them with horror, seeing monsters brooding in the machines. In How We Became Posthuman, N. Katherine Hayles separates hype from fact, investigating the fate of embodiment in an information age. Hayles relates three interwoven stories: how information lost its body, that is, how it came to be conceptualized as an entity separate from the material forms that carry it; the cultural and technological construction of the cyborg; and the dismantling of the liberal humanist “subject” in cybernetic discourse, along with the emergence of the “posthuman.” Ranging widely across the history of technology, cultural studies, and literary criticism, Hayles shows what had to be erased, forgotten, and elided to conceive of information as a disembodied entity. Thus she moves from the post-World War II Macy Conferences on cybernetics to the 1952 novel Limbo by cybernetics aficionado Bernard Wolfe; from the concept of self-making to Philip K. Dick’s literary explorations of hallucination and reality; and from artificial life to postmodern novels exploring the implications of seeing humans as cybernetic systems. Although becoming posthuman can be nightmarish, Hayles shows how it can also be liberating. From the birth of cybernetics to artificial life, How We Became Posthuman provides an indispensable account of how we arrived in our virtual age, and of where we might go from here.

– Publisher's abstract

We live in a world, according to N. Katherine Hayles, where new languages are constantly emerging, proliferating, and fading into obsolescence. These are languages of our own making: the programming languages written in code for the intelligent machines we call computers. Hayles’s latest exploration provides an exciting new way of understanding the relations between code and language and considers how their interactions have affected creative, technological, and artistic practices. My Mother Was a Computer explores how the impact of code on everyday life has become comparable to that of speech and writing: language and code have grown more entangled, the lines that once separated humans from machines, analog from digital, and old technologies from new ones have become blurred. My Mother Was a Computer gives us the tools necessary to make sense of these complex relationships. Hayles argues that we live in an age of intermediation that challenges our ideas about language, subjectivity, literary objects, and textuality. This process of intermediation takes place where digital media interact with cultural practices associated with older media, and here Hayles sharply portrays such interactions: how code differs from speech; how electronic text differs from print; the effects of digital media on the idea of the self; the effects of digitality on printed books; our conceptions of computers as living beings; the possibility that human consciousness itself might be computational; and the subjective cosmology wherein humans see the universe through the lens of their own digital age. We are the children of computers in more than one sense, and no critic has done more than N. Katherine Hayles to explain how these technologies define us and our culture. Heady and provocative, My Mother Was a Computer will be judged as her best work yet.

– Publisher's abstract

The United Nations Development Programme has proposed seven factors that may help assess “human securities, which, in contrast to national security, focus on what people actually experience physically, socially and environmentally” (p. 54). These criteria pertain to economics, food, health, environment, individual and community behavior, political institutions. The article applies them to two distinct archaeological contexts, in the American Southwest and the North Atlantic, focusing on the question as to whether continuity is better than collapse (see especially p. 64). [The article is significant because of the detail with which the criteria are applied to the archaeological data: in this respect, “experience” is not left vague, but is brought down to a very manageable level. However, the notion of experience remains ambiguous. It is more a question of “response” (pp. 58; 64) than of experience, if by this we mean the impact on the responders’ consciousness.]

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2016

Taking as its starting point Giddens’ notion of structure as existing “only as memory traces, the organic basis of human knowledgeability, and as instantiated in action” (Giddens 1984, p. 377), structure is then defined as existing “only in so far as it is reproduced by the conduct of actors” (p. 316). Rather than something static, structure is viewed only as linked, dynamically, to agency as the capacity of implementing things. In this sense, agency “can only be understood in terms of its recursive relationship with structure” (p. 228); in fact, “instances of innovation (i.e., changes in structure) are particularly significant for investigating the recursive relationship between agency and structure” (p. 314). Thus the particular focus of the article is on “the structure-agency dialectic” and on the “recursive relationship of agency and structure” (p. 314). In this perspective, it is in the instances of innovation, as the change from one state to another, that one can detect agency as the constitutive element of structure (p. 314, 317). To the extent that these innovations are accepted and become part of tradition, they provide an example of “structuration” in Giddens’ terms (p. 317). Innovation is defined as a structural “anomaly” that becomes part of a later tradition (p. 321), i.e., into the “structure” (p. 322) [in other words, an anomaly is not in itself an innovation: it can be considered as such only when it becomes productive – hence, an “agent”]. Applying in detail this concept to a body of ceramics from the American Southwest (Mimbres, pp. 323-329), the main conclusion reached (p. 329f.) regards the interaction between painting as agency [dynamically] and style as structure [inevitably to be seen as static, though this is not acknowledged]. Two other conclusions regard, briefly, the relationship between innovation and conformity (p. 330f.) and intentionality, where it is suggested that “innovative acts are more likely to be intentional challenges to tradition” (p. 331). – [The article points out the potential vagueness of the notion of “agency,” and the stated goal is to offer a methodology that might allow a more concrete handling of the dynamics involved. This is significant, but the argument ends up with an essential antinomy that is not resolved: the dynamics of structuration depends in fact on the static analysis of structure as known from the artifacts. The “compositional analysis” of ceramics (pp. 318, 320) remains essentially static. It is the problem of a broken tradition that is not sufficiently taken inot account.]

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2016

Hegmon states: “Researchers have recognized that no single theory can explain all aspects of style, or all facets of material culture variation, and they have likewise recognized that style is not a unidimensional phenomenon.” (p.522) The approach taken in the article is one of a review of the current theories relating to style, to identify commonalities and to explain differences between these theoretical approaches. She discusses specific themes, and relates the diverse opinions posited by different theoretical schools; some of these themes are: Learning and Interaction, Social Distinctions, and Power and Social Inequality.

– Federico Buccellati, 2015

– Giorgio Buccellati

– Giorgio Buccellati

Mit diesem Band erhält Heideggers vielfältiges Nachdenken über Wesen und Wesung der Sprache wichtige Ergänzungen. Für ein zweistündiges Oberseminar im Sommersemester 1939 setzte er sich mit Herder und dessen preisgekrönter Schrift “über den Ursprung der Sprache” auseinander. Die Aufzeichnungen zu den übungen führen unmittelbar in die Werkstatt des Denkers, indem sie den Leser teilnehmen lassen an den Fragen, mit denen Heidegger die Darstellung von Herders Gedanken begleitet. Sie leben aus der Gegenüberstellung von metaphysischer und seinsgeschichtlicher Betrachtung der Sprache, dem Kreisen um die Grenzen der Metaphysik und dem Bemühen, den “anderen Anfang” zu finden und von dorther die alten Fragen neu zu denken. Das eigentliche Ringen geht in immer neuen Ansätzen um den übergang von der Metaphysik der Sprache gemäß der abendländischen Tradition - der Mensch als animal rationale - zum “erdenkenden Einsprung in die Wesung des seynsgeschichtlichen Wortes”. Drei Gedichte Stefan Georges dienen als Beispiel für das “übergängliche” Wort.

Den Aufzeichnungen Heideggers sind die Protokolle von Teilnehmern des Seminars beigegeben. Sie spiegeln den Gang der übungen und die dort erzielten Ergebnisse. Damit ist Gelegenheit gegeben, neben dem Denker Heidegger nun auch dem Lehrer über die Schulter zu schauen.

– Publisher's summary

This essay is a scientific explanation of the emplacement of artifacts using methods derived from geology. This article supplements Buccellati’s discussion on the difference between emplacement and deposition. Herz and Garrison’s article describes the methodology behind understanding the deposition of an artifact.

– Heidi Dodgen, 2013

In his article, Hill argues that by using scientific methods in archaeology and ethnographic studies, one can understand life patterns of ancient individuals. To illustrate this approach, he attempts to determine the use or function of various dwellings at a site he excavated in Arizona. He utilizes modern ethnographic studies and evidence from the archaeological record to make a case for determining living spaces and kitchens at the ancient site.

– Heidi Dodgen, 2013

An intense account, full of analysis and results from an interesting experimental case study! Hill conducts a highly complex approach attempting to identify the individual choices in artifacts and to what extent they may reflect social organization. Several characteristics or law-like statements configure a common prehistoric context including craft specialization, exchange, residence units, and population movement.

The case of the so-called Tijuana pot experiment focuses on 75 ceramic vessels purchased in a shop at Tijuana. Four different design motifs were given to several potters for painting on fifteen vessels. The painted vessels were then broken and a selection of variables (caught on sherds) became subject of discriminant analysis and clustering classification. A similar experiment was executed in the hand writing of various individuals in order to investigate their performance over time.

Hill expressed some enthusiastic comments about this experiment, noticing above all its benefits and applications to archaeological data. His tentative conclusions determine: 1) three of four variables are usually sufficient to isolate the work of the individuals; 2) the variables measured appeared to represent subconscious variability; as such they almost certainly cannot be taught or shared among individuals, regardless of shared heredity or shared contexts of learning; 3) Inter-individual variability is much more conspicuous using these variables than in intra-variability; 4) Individual motor-performance characteristics change remarkably little through time; and 5) Such characterictics are unaffected by variability in the manufacturing tools employed, the speed or carelessness of manufacture, illness, fatigue or other factors.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

The analytical method in psychology is itself a myth, that must be dissected. Of particular interest for our purposes is the second part, devoted to psychological language. As a critique of established methods, it seeks to shed light on the way in which the unconscious can be reined in through special control mechanisms.

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2013

This article represents two letters written after the publication of Binford’s Huxley Lecture in Man as “Data, Relativism and Archaeological Science” – the first is a critique of the lecture by Hodder, the second a rebuttal by Binford and Stone. The two letters clearly show the conflict between the approaches of New Archaeology and Post-Processual Archaeology, and how the personalities behind these theoretical positions also play their part in the critique of each other’s positions.

– Federico Buccellati, 2015

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2016

The main goal of the authors is to discuss “widely varying theoretical approaches to the past” (Preface to the first edition, p. XI) presenting the main modern theories about archaeology, specifically the Marxist, structuralist, processual and positivist approaches (chapters 1-4).

In the second part (chapters 5-10) the focus is on finding the best way for archaeologists to give meaning to the archaeological record (i.e. “a series of events,” p. 144). To achieve this aim, the authors try to define the main features of archaeology: 1) archaeology “should recapture its traditional links with history” (ivi, p. 125), and 2) “the reading of the archaeological record is constrained by the interpretation of context” (p. 5).

[The analysis of the archaeological record may be compared with that in CAR where the aim is to clarify the two main concepts of emplacement (i.e. “the way things are in the ground: their physical juxtaposition, their reciprocal contacts are the proper and exclusive subjects of observation,” 2.2) and of deposition (i.e. “the assumed process through which things have come to be in the ground: it can never be observed, but only inferred,” ibid). The central point of the comparison is based on the difference between Hodder’s context [see the related Excerpts] and Buccellati’s emplacement, a concept that seems more suitable to explain the depositional processes through a strict analysis of the result of deposition.

An aspect both the authors agree on is instead the notion that all the data are actually “not given,” p. 146: “Properly speaking, the data do not exist because they are perceived or ‘given’ within a theory”; and CAR, 1.5: “The process of stratigraphic excavation entails that data are not in fact given (paradoxically, the data are not “data”!). They are the construct of the excavator’s observational itinerary”].

Although the theoretical approach to the stratigraphy given by Hodder and Buccellati is different (i.e., in Hodder context : deposition; in Buccellati emplacement : deposition), we can see that both authors stress the importance of a good definition of the method used to give meaning to the many types of data found during excavation.

– Marco De Pietri, 2014

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2016

Hodder defines New Archaeology, in this article, as a form of functionalism which uses an “organic analogy” to describe society. After showing how prominent “New Archaeologists” use functionalist precepts in their work, he proceeds to a critique of functionalism itself: input from external sources, culture more than mere function, relationship between individual and society, cross-cultural generalizations. He then defines structure in terms of pattern and style, and as code, and gives a critique of structuralism in general. He embraces aspects of structuralism, and points to examples from other contributions in the same volume. In the conclusions he rejects the definition of culture as extrasomatic means of adaptation, suggesting instead that it is meaningfully constituted.

– Federico Buccellati, 2015

In a rebuttal to criticisms of his Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Hodder attempts to show that the direction he proposed for archaeology is feasible and rigorous. In this article he explores ‘meaning’ in archaeology, with a focus on the function, structure and content of meaning, and how these three aspects have been developed to differing degrees in archaeology. A ‘con-textual’ approach is proposed, whereby material culture is examined as if a text. The example given is that of Collett’s analysis of iron furnaces in Africa, reexamined as if text. He then gives an outline of the other contributions to the volume, and emphasizes the need to understand the roles of idea, belief and symbolic meaning in social action.

– Federico Buccellati, 2015

Archaeologists employ a hermeneutic method to learn about the past from archaeological material according to Hodder. Hodder’s hermeneutic spiral involves three elements: material culture, theory, and the archaeologist. The archaeologist examines the material culture and tests theories to see what best explains the material culture.

– Heidi Dodgen, 2013

This collection of essays on theory in archaeology brings together a number of topics currently being discussed, including behavioural archaeology, evolutionary archaeology, cognitive archaeology, symbol and agency theories, phenomenology/landscape and postcolonical archaeology.

In the introduction to these essays, Hodder considers the status and types of theories most current in archaeology and advocates an acceptance of the diversity they represent, rather than ‘bemoaning’ a perceived loss of unity. He shows how different theories are associated with specific research questions. These questions are often related to different time scales, and and levels of community. Each theory has certain merits for answering certain questions, and in fact the divergences need not be as large as is often claimed. Overall, Hodder sees a change towards (or back to) ‘things’ in archaeological theory, where materiality and the relationship between humans and objects come to the fore, partly replacing language-based models. Finally, it seems some archaeologists at least have now gained enough confidence in the discipline to contribute to discussions in other disciplines, rather than simply borrowing from them - the special expertise of the archaeologist being “both the long term and the materiality of human life” (p. 11).

– Laerke Recht, 2016

Hodder here illustrates in very practical terms the way the project at Çatalhöyük engages with various stakeholders. He presents four ‘groups’: politicians (local and international), local residents, New Age goddess followers and artists. While archaeologists and academics have their own research agendas and questions, Hodder believes that they are also ethically obligated to address the questions of stakeholders. These are used to engage with the topics that are relevant to each group, and to provide basis (or refutation) for their arguments. To this end, ethnographers are part of the team, working to find out what questions interest the stakeholders.

In practical terms, this means analysing the data in ways that will help answer such questions, for example by examining evidence for gender distribution to determine if there is evidence for a female authority, or DNA analysis to determine genetic background and relation to current populations.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

This book is a collection of Hodder’s own essays (a few written with other authors). They reflect his approach to various archaeological topics, especially in relation to theory in archaeology. Hodder’s idea of ‘reflexive’ archaeology is discussed, along with an emphasis on social archaeology, a specific aspect of agency and individuality. The use of micro-archaeology is illustrated especially in the later papers, and a concern for responsible practice that engages the array of ‘stakeholders’ is a theme throughout. Çatalhöyük remains the main starting point, but sites in the UK are also discussed.

See under Excerpts for an extended summary and excerpts.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

Good short discussion of post-processual / interpretive archaeology, both as a critique of processual archaeology and as presenting new methodologies. This includes the close connections with gender archaeology, phenomenology, hermeneutics and agency.

– Laerke Recht, 2016

1. Thinking about things differently. – The goal is to look at things in themselves and in terms of their interconnection (“co-entanglement,” p.3). A basic presupposition is that things are not inert (p.5). [Unfortunately, inertness is not defined.] – Things are in fact described as active subjects: they “assemble” (p.8), they “bring humans and nonhumans together in heterogeneous mixes” (p.8), they have a “point of view” (p.12), they “gather humans” and “make us” (p.13), seem “to have agency” (p.14). Thus the goal is redefined as aiming to identify in things their “objectness, a stand-in-the-wayness to things that resists, that forms, that entraps and entangles” (p.13). – As part of this approach, it is stated that “humans are thing, … just bundles of biochemical processes,” although, to be sure, “if a human is a thing, it is a thing of a particular kind” (p.9).

2. Humans depend on things.

[Three major points, closely linked to each other, are missing in H.’s theory.

(1) Definition of inertia. – The concept is invoked frequently, but only to negate that it is a quality of “things.” “Vibrancy” is the opposite quality, that is, it is said, the proper attribute of things. They are vibrant because they are not inert. But it is not made clear what either term means. Also

(2) The notion of control. –

(3) The question of maximization. – A key point that is missing in H.s theory is the question of maximization. The wider and the more complex the system of connections become, the more able given individuals become in identifying the more relevant nodes and to maximize their relevance, hence the efficiency of the whole system. One goes then, we might say, from an entangled “meshwork” (Ingold) to a proper network. This is at the core of the urban revolution, where the leadership provides the essential directional thrust for the community, so that it does not become suffocated by sheer inertia under the weight of complexity. This is at the core of political development. ]

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2016

The paper treats essential concepts of the classification process in archaeology. The pivotal argument regards the theoretical and methodological underpinnings which define the type in archaeological data. Hodson follows a hierarchical order, explaining the ambiguity of basic concept like attributes, which in cases may refer to a variable (color, width, length) or be used to describe a certain state. The perception and delineation of the type also bears some ambiguity. Hodson avoids the dissection (defining a type based on metric differences) by using the properties of the material instead (obsidian vs. flint) as primary elements and employs the item (attribute)-clustering definition which allows the types to be divided according to their respective units. He supports the employment of the numerical approach to measure and further analyzes the properties of a type.

– Esmeralda Agolli, 2014

A review of Dilthey’s work at a time when it was not yet widely known in the English world. It gives a thoughtful assessment of Dilthey’s position vis-a-vis Kant [in spite of the term Critique of Historical Reason being used in Holborn’s title, there is no discussion as to why this phrase, originally chosen as the title of Dilthey’s work, was eventually dropped]. An interesting argument is made (p. 106f.) regarding Rickert’s introduction of the concept of idiographic vs. nomothetic dimensions: Dilthey rejected this, and the term “Kulturwissenschaften,” because the human condition is too complex to be possibly subsumed within a nomothetic system (as sociology or psychology would do). One of Dilthey’s merits was to emphasize the significance of a holistic approach to psychology (p. 111), which led to the introduction of the concept of “Gestalt” psychology [and also developed Kant’s contribution to the notion of structure]. Shifting away from psychology as the underlying foundation of philosophy, Dilthey developed a doctrine of hermeneutics (p. 112).

– Giorgio Buccellati, 2013