Giorgio Buccellati, A Critique of Archaeological Reason
Notes to the introduction

Home

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 The themes

 Back to top
1.1.1 A dual definition of archaeology
  1. Cf. Carver 2011. [Laerke Recht, July 2016].
 Back to top
1.1.2 Referentiality: grammar and hermeneutics
 Back to top
1.1.3 The value and limits of positivism
  1. See Shanks & Tilley 1992, esp. ch. 2. [August 2016].
 Back to top
1.1.4 Archaeological reason
  1. Hermeneutics and philosophy: Davey 2006; Figal 2006; Gadamer 1976. [July 2016].
  2. Kant: 1781, 1788, 1790. [July 2016].
 Back to top
1.1.5 Structure
  1. On the "fashion" of structuralism see Caws 1997
  2. The expression "a long argument" was dear to Darwin...
  3. A similar idea of the 'construct' of data can be found in Roskams 2001 [Laerke Recht, February 2014].
  4. For a problematisation of the relationship between 'experts' and public and the hidden hierarchies and territorial boundaries implicated, see Karlsson and Gustafsson 2006. [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. [Laerke Recht, July 2016].
 Back to top
1.1.7 Digitality
 Back to top
1.1.8 Critique
  1. For a comparison of the concept behind the critique of excavation and Kant's Critiques, see bibliographical entries under Kant 1781, 1788 and 1790 and under excerpts. [Laerke Recht, February 2014].
  2. On the propaedeutic nature of Kant's Critique see the monograph on Kant
 Back to top

1.2 The argument

  1. "Long argument": see 13.4.1
  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 1987
  3. cf. the discussion on argumentation in archaeology and its relation to theory in Smith 2015. [Laerke Recht, November 2015].
  4. Data as not data: Hodder & Hutson 2003, p. 146. [Laerke Recht, July 2016]
 Back to top

1.3 The companion website

 Back to top

1.4 The public impact

 Back to top