1.1 The themes
      1.1.1 A dual definition of archaeology
      1.1.2 Referentiality: grammar and hermeneutics
      1.1.3 The value and limits of positivism
      1.1.4 Archaeological reason
      1.1.5 Structure
      1.1.6 Archaeological theory and method
      1.1.7 Digitality
      1.1.8 Critique
1.2 The argument
1.3 The companion website
1.4 The public impact

1.1.1 A dual definition of archaeology

1. Cf. Carver 2011 Reflections.

   – [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]

     Back to top

1.1.3 The value and limits of positivism

1. See Shanks & Tilley 1992 Re- Constructing, esp. ch. 2.

   – [August 2016]

     Back to top

1.1.4 Archaeological reason

1. Hermeneutics and philosophy: Davey 2006 Unquiet; Figal 2006 Gegenstandlichkeit; Gadamer 1976 Philosophical.

   – [July 2016]

2. Kant: Kant 1781 Reinen Vernunft, Kant 1788 Praktischen Vernunft, Kant 1790 Kritik.

   – [July 2016]

     Back to top

1.1.5 Structure

1. On the “fashion” of structuralism see Caws 1997 Structuralism.

2. The expression “a long argument” was dear to Darwin, see note 12.4.1.

3. A similar idea of the “construct” of data can be found in Roskams 2001 Excavation.

   – [ Laerke Recht, February 2014]

4. For a problematisation of the relationship between “experts” and public and the hidden hierarchies and territorial boundaries implicated, see Karlssonandgustafsson 2006 Heritage Clans.

   – [ Laerke Recht, October 2014]

     Back to top

1.1.6 Archaeological theory and method

1. For a recent review of the current status of archaeological theory and method, see Cooney 2009 European And Global Archaeologies.

   – [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]

     Back to top

1.1.8 Critique

1. On the propaedeutic nature of Kant’s Critique see the monograph on Kant.

2. For a comparison of the concept behind the critique of excavation and Kant’s Critiques, see bibliographical entries under Kant 1781 Reinen Vernunft, Kant 1788 Praktischen Vernunft, Kant 1790 Kritik and in the monograph on Kant.

   – [ Laerke Recht, February 2014]

     Back to top

1.2 The argument

1. “Long argument”: see 12.4.1.

2. One finds in de Saussure a similar Kantian approach in the notion that the viewpoint of the observer constitutes the proper object of study, see Harris R 1987 Reading Saussure.

3. Cf. the discussion on argumentation in archaeology and its relation to theory in Smith M E 2015 Better Arguments.

   – [ Laerke Recht, November 2015]

4. Data as “not data”: Hodder & Hutson 2003 Reading The Past, p. 146; cf. also the dedicated theme “Emplacement and context”.

   – [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]

     Back to top