Critique of Archaeological Reason
3. Notes

Notes to Chapter 13. The archaeological record

– May 2023

13.1 Archaeological digital thought
13.2 Conceptual digitality of the archaeological record
      13.2.1 The primacy of atomism
      13.2.2 Finality of the fragment
      13.2.3 Quantification and the anchoring bias
13.3 The role of observation
      13.3.1 The dynamics of the record
      13.3.2 The observation as a structuring moment
      13.3.3 The input as argument
13.4 "Ontologies" and the semantic web
      13.4.1 Grammatical and hermeneutical aspects
      13.4.2 "Ontologies" as grammars
      13.4.3 The semantic web as hermeneutics
13.5 An archaeological record in practice
      13.5.1 A test case
      13.5.2 Global Record and Browser Edition
      13.5.3 The semantics of automation
      13.5.4 Intrinsic vs. extrinsic integration
      13.5.5 Compositional matters
      13.5.6 The basal data
      13.5.7 The scripts
      13.5.8 The dialectics of alternate registers
      13.5.9 Interactivity
      13.5.10 Globality
      13.5.11 Publication
      13.5.12 Portability
      13.5.13 Bibliographical status
      13.5.14 The presentation component of the browser edition


13.1 Archaeological digital thought

  1. Patrik 1985 Is There.

  2. Roosvelt &al 2015 Excavation.

  3. Hodder 1999 Process, p. 181. for “hypertext” archaeology.

  4. Digitality as marking a significant change in our engagement with archaeology and the past, and the great potential of digital media: Olsen &al 2012 Things.

    – [ Laerke Recht, August 2014]

  5. For various discussions of digital implementation, benefits and challenges, and theoretical background, see papers in Earl &al 2013 Archaeology Digital Era, especially Huggett 2013 Computer Applications, Costa &al 2013 Open Data, Corley 2013 Communication and Carver & Lang 2013 E- Archaeology.

    – [ Laerke Recht, January 2015]

  6. See also Berggren &al 2015 Trowel Edge.

    – [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]

  7. For the question of the web and open access, see Kansa Witcher Watrall 2011 Archaeology 2; Wilson & Edwards 2015 Open.

    – [July 2016]

  8. For an important early set of papers, see Gardin 1970 Archéologie.

    – [July 2016]

     Back to top
13.2.3 Quantification and the anchoring bias
  1. For the problems of selectivity in the definition of the initial universe in a statistical sense, and for the notion of congruence (“concordance”) in terms of quantification, see Carr 1985 Concordance Concordance, pp. 8-9.

  2. For the notion of “punctuated equilibrium” see Eldredge & Gould 1972 Punctuated “Punctuated Equilibria”

     Back to top
13.3.1 The dynamics of the record
  1. For digital monographs and digital books see the website d-discorse.

  2. For the dynamics of digital “ontology” conceived as a “living structure” see Berners- Lee &al 2008 Semantic, p. 99.

  3. The notion of “punctuated continuum” echoes that of “punctuated equilibrium,” for which see Eldredge & Gould 1972 Punctuated.

     Back to top
13.3.3 The input as argument
  1. Refer to specific programs, such as Neo4J withitn the Semantic web.

  2. For non-existence refer to linguistics, see Moro Andrea 2008 Boundaries.

  3. Refer to Network theory.

  4. To (2): for language being coeval with concept see Moro Andrea 2008 Boundaries.

  5. Cf. Moro Andrea 2008 Boundaries.

    – [August 2016]

     Back to top
13.4.2 "Ontologies" as grammars
  1. On the notion of “ontology” and on the emphasis on the connection between objects and relations see Berners- Lee &al 2008 Semantic, pp. 96 and 98.

  2. On the notion of “ontologies” in the plural see Heidegger 1927 Sein Und Zeit Sein und Zeit, here especially in the excerpts.

  3. On the relationship between ontologies and ontology, see Arp &al 2015 Building.

     Back to top
13.4.3 The semantic web as hermeneutics
  1. For the semantic web as expressing “shared meaning” see Berners- Lee &al 2008 Semantic, pp. 96, 100.

     Back to top
13.5.3 The semantics of automation
  1. For Network Theory in complex social systems, see Wasserman & Faust 1994 Social Network Analysis.

    – [ Laerke Recht, March 2016]

  2. On Network Theory in archaeology: Brughmans 2012 Thinking Through Networks and Collar &al 2015 Networks In Archaeology.

    – [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]

     Back to top
13.5.7 The scripts
  1. We used script files back in 1977 to create a full set of cuneiform signs: the system was developed by Sal Fallone and implemented by Yoshitaka Kobayashi, see Buccellati G 1977 Babylonian.

  2. Our first application to archaeological data took place in the early 80s, see Buccellati & Rouault 1983 Terqa, where the output was produced by plotters. The same data can now be run on commercial programs like AutoCAD.

  3. The notion of ASCII scripts to construe analogical architectural graphics has been elaborated in full, with ample exemplificaiton, in Buccellati F 2013 Three-dimensional (cf. here).

     Back to top
13.5.11 Publication
  1. The LAN (Local Area Network) system was set up by Federico A. Buccellati.

  2. The first CD of 1998 was the one about unit OH2.

  3. The aspect of dissemination of primary data is the focus of the research of Eric Kansa and associates, in particular as it regards the possibilities introduced by an open access policy to the World Wide Web, see Kansa Witcher Burton 2010 Googling; Kansa Witcher Watrall 2011 Archaeology 2; Kansa 2012 Openness; Kansa & Witcher 2013 Publication.

     Back to top
13.5.12 Portability
  1. The California Digital Library is one of the earliest and major initiatives to provide a digital framework for publications. This takes place especially through the section devoted to eScholarship. The data are primarily linear renderings of paper copies, presented in a PDF format.

  2. Open Context is devoted specifically to archaeological records.

  3. Cf. Ducke 2012 Free And Open Source Software; Jeffrey 2012 Digital Dark Age.

    – [ Laerke Recht, July 2016]

  4. Cf. Richards 2002 Digital Preservation And Access.

    – [ Laerke Recht, August 2016]

     Back to top