3. Bibliography

      - [Giorgio Buccellati, July 2016]

     This is an important article, which takes a special place next to any other written on the classification of artifacts (i.e. Spaulding 1982, Dunnell 1971, 1982, Rouse 1960, 1972, Krieger 1944, Read 1982, 1989, 2007). The discourse on classification commonly has 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 coins every decision, choice, query and interpretation that process, and as such must be solidly formulated and conceptualized. In philosophical terms, this approach marks a clear controversy with the Kuhnian agenda (Kuhn 1962), on the scientific thought and synthesis. What the Adam's 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 leads their actions in the construction of a classification scheme with the case of the Nubian pottery, named after one of the authors as WYA system. Purposefully the Adam's do not involve any sophisticated mathematical or quantitative application 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 agree ware-concept like construction, fabric, surface, paste, density comprise some of the distinguished parameters. The Adam's, acknowledge the direct observation as a a complicates decision making process at which biased thoughts and estimations become inevitable. At other cases, the acquirement of many details may leave the gap to fall into a circular determination process. Therefore the laboratory training that familiarizes with the many steps for recognition of the sherd -variables the process is crucial and an agreement of 90% among experts is an optimal and accepted value (i.e. Moh's Scale hardness measurement).
     The last few pages dedicate to the utilization of the biological species classification in the achievement of a scientific classification in archaeology. The discussion is constructed upon the interbreeding between populations, but as they admit only offers some sketchy comments on their implications into a scientific classification. – [Esmeralda Agolli, September 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, February 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 an underlying, 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, October 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, March 2016]

     An interesting overview focused on the application of quantification in Archaeology. It takes an historical and analytical emphasis dealing with problems, flaws and contributions of the quantitative logic in the clarification of the past. The implications of this agenda have interfered in the discipline rather late. A seminal effort was noticed since 1953 with Spaulding (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 to address and interpret cogently an archaeological query. Explicitly he argues that the simple conversion of the archaeological data into numbers together with the interpretation of the subsequent result with formal mathematical theories only has led to a 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".
     Ammerman uses funny remarks towards Dunnell (Dunnell 1971, 1982), and compares his theoretical and methodological synthesis in archaeology with that of the medieval medicine:
          "The tension between theory and practice in contemporary Archaeology, as identified by Dunnell, is much like that of medieval medicine. Dressed in red gowns and red hats, the physicians of the Medieval Ages would rather round to a sick person, discuss the patient case in philosophical terms, and then turn the individual over to a lowly assistant, perhaps a barber, who would administer a cure".
     According to Ammerman, the gap between the quantitative/mathematic 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 the query, theory, methodology and the testing of the hypothesis. 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"
     The agenda of Ammerman is not to ignore the application of quantification in the field. On contrary, he shifts the focus while treating some beneficial efforts taking place during the 1970. More explicitly he deals with the volume; Quantitative Research in Archaeology (1971) which gives the marriage of quantitative science and archaeology another dimension. The contribution of Read in the volume is highly evaluated (Read 1989).
          "Read wants to see mathematics used to a much greater extent as a tool of thinking in archaeology: that is not just for the analysis of the data but for the formal representation of ideas and theories. This should be read in conjunction with a review by the same author. 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".
     Particular attention is given to the implication of the quantitative methods in the classification process of the 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 such kind have made several archaeologists to shift the focus towards the traditional approaches. For instance Adam (1988) would evoke:
          "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".
     Positive remarks are noted with the application of the factor analysis by the Binfords (1966), or to recent applications of the intrasite special analysis that have resulted highly beneficial for the understanding of the spatical distribution and meaning of the data. – [Esmeralda Agolli, September 2014]

Notes in progress – [Giorgio Buccellati, December 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]

– [Giorgio Buccellati, July 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, February 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-à-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, October 2015]

– [Giorgio Buccellati, July 2016]

[notes in progress] – [Laerke Recht, Date]

     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, February 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, October 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, March 2016]

– [Laerke Recht, March 2016]

– [Giorgio Buccellati, July 2016]

– []

      - notes in progress.
– [Laerke Recht]

     A series of essays that deal primarily with Lukács' book Die Serstörung 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; he 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, March 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, July 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, July 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, July 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, August 2016]

      – [Giorgo Buccellati, July 2016]

      – [Giorgio Buccellati February 2015]

      – [Giorgio Buccellati February 2015]

      [notes in progress] – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

      [notes in progress] – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

     Accepting the need of 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 and Luca Pintaudi, October 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, February 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, February 2013]

     The clash and controversy between the traditional approach and processualism takes different direction here (see Renfrew 1980, Flannery 1982. Binford, indeed as the pioneer of processualism centers the discourse at a basic dimension: the research target, or what is the focus of our studies. As he implies: "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"
     Traditional archaeology, on the other hand does not preoccupy about the source of the problem. As being perceived from the perspective of Taylor, if anything, archaeology is more of a technical field which basing on the 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.
     In Binford's view, the above definition does not infers any how or why or to what extent an interpretation is formed hence does not fully addresses the mission of the discipline. A theoretical approach cannot spring from first-order observations. Instead, what needs to be understood is to build a relational strategy among things like: actors, actions and places associate other types of contexts like 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's prefers to name 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.
     Also Binford sees problems with the theoretical framework of cognitive archaeology and its difficult association with the first order-observations. Moreover, at an inductive emphasis between the archaeological interpretation and explanation he sees with prevalence 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.
     In addition, he concludes arguing for a strong role of the subject matter in the discipline and careful and systematic analysis of the patterning data. – [Esmeralda Agolli, September 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 posthumous and unfinished, the author presents an in-depth reflection on the main issues connected to the historical research. In doing so, Bloch uses an extremely modern approach, advocating methods which have many point 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 the 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: History must quest for the nexus among their causes and effects. Moreover, he shows his modern sensitivity by underlying the importance for an historian of being expert in the argument of his interest, but also versed in all the main topics involved by 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 it, he identifies two prerequisites: the willingness of working in teams and the agreement to some preliminary definitions and to a given lexicon.
     He stresses in fact the importance of definitions and of clear chronological schemes: they must be instruments apt to identify without doubts the object of the research, but they must be also flexible enough 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 can be recomposed and explained, as a natural consequence of the process.– [Stefania Ermidoro, February 2014]

      [notes in progress]. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

     An evaluation of the prehistoric studies in Europe, in historic and topical dimension! Bogucki admits the closer connection of this tradition with that of the culture-historical approach where the issues of chronology or interpretations of life-ways yet remain at the center of attention.
     The new development of the epistemology of theory lacks the implication of the 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, ecological, demographic, geographic and so on. Moreover a close interconnection between these theoretical avenues with clearly defined methods and inductive analysis never has been questioned in the European environment. Bogucki goes on mentioning several productive efforts occurring in the studies of European Neolithic, prehistoric economy, demography, ecology and so on. A centered focus in the analysis of settlement pattern, assessment of environment, subsistence remains or mortuary practices has loomed large the understanding of the relational characteristics between the addressed theoretical subjects and the derived interpretations from inductive analysis. – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]

     An elucidating overview of the stratigraphic context and formation processes of archaeological data. Bollong uses two different hunter-gathers sites (Haaskraal Rock Shelter and Abbot's Cave) at Zeekoe valley (Republic of South Africa) to analyze the dispersion of the pottery data and to what extent cultural and post-cultural (depositional) processes impact its location. The area under survey covers 2000 sq km and both sites belong to these boundaries. The data analysis indicates interesting intrasite movement of the materials. Pottery in particular is classified based on refit criteria in a code system of six categories: context, morphology, texture, fabric, decoration and so on. A highly complex 3D imaging system provided a complex view of both sites. The results indicated that stratigraphy lacked significant clarity and such made difficult the understanding of the horizontal dispersion or the vertical displacement of sherds. In the Abbots Cave in particular different formation processes affected largely the deposits. However some similar groupings at one location did show certain behavioral trends and associations. For instance, the hunter-gathers groups at the Zekoe valley introduced open vessels only appropriate for cooking purposes but not storage. Also the analysis showed a particular location of the sherds being originally deposited at a certain level. Bollong highlights that this methodological technique is highly beneficial for the understanding of pre and post-depositional processes in general. – [Esmeralda Agolli, June 2014]

     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. 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, August 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 M�?�©diterran�?�©e et le Monde M�?�©diterran�?�©en �?� l'�?�©poque 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 g?n?ral, capable d'extrapoler les details, de d?passer l'?rudition et de saisir le vivant" (p. 16) and profonde "une histoire des hommes vue dans ses r?alit?s collectives, dans l'?volution 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 dur?e approach against the the courte dur?e and the histoire ?v?nementielle, 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, May 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, July 2016]

     [notes in progress] – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

     The paper is eqquiped with many facts and analysis. It is conceptualized on an 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. Mainly evokes the reasoning that brought to attention the crucial necessity to employ in the process of data collection the systematic method of stratigraphic excavation. This discussion noted an increasing popularity at the beginning of the twentieth century 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 on these efforts was that the American scholars only achieved to construct a unilinear tradition deeply rooted in the cultural premise which named this approach as 'cultural stratigraphy'. – [Esmeralda Agolli, July 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 preminence to archaeology within the social sciences, considering it as «the most basic of the positive sciences». Brown notices a sense of inferiority in the 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, May 2014]

     The paper offers an overview on 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 on the functional or stylistic types/terms(see Sackett 1977, Wobst 1977), placing the morphological attributes above these two. The understanding of the properties of the data (assemblage, burial practices) on this extent elucidates the issues related to technology, information exchange and social, cultural and economic background. Brown evaluates extensively 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 meanings (types) and attribute relationships. – [Esmeralda Agolli, April 2014]

     [notes in progress] – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

– []

– []

– []

     The paper offers a theoretical emphasis on the introduction, origin, importance, value, and the impact of writing in society. The invention of writing as process in itself; besides changing drastically the communication within the ancient society, comprises as well an invaluable and insightful source of information to the studies and research anywhere such is made available.
     Buccellati focuses on a dual emphasis and treats the historic and historiographic premises. The historic deals with the importance of writing and its invention considered as a stepping stone in the so-called process of 'urban revolution'. The historiographic premise, on the other hand, takes into account the potential of writing offering 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 the symbols and actions which hand in hand have contributed to the creation of the contiguous linguistic devices. And the writing serves as the finalizing phase of this innovative procedure. Buccellati wonders: what was the necessity for such process to become accepted and understood, effective and practical? In particular, he deals with the evolution of the writing and the technical antecedents (the syntactical and non-syntactical categories).
     Lastly, the paper focuses on the positive impact of the writing in the cultural and human (mental and physical) evolution and its immediate influence in what Buccellati infers as: the first extrasomatic extension of logical brain function. – [Esmeralda Agolli, September 2014]

– []

– [Laerke Recht, March 2016]

– [Laerke Recht, March 2016]

– []

– [Giorgio Buccellati, March 2014]

     The theoretical presuppositions for the application of distributional classes to ethnicity as a topic documented only from archaeological sources. – [Giorgio Buccellati, January 2014]

– []

– []

– []

     An example of the application of distributional classes to ethnicity as a topic documented only from archaeological sources. – [Giorgio Buccellati, January 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 building 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, allow a precise identification of cultural and social traits belonging to broken traditions. – [Stefania Ermidoro, November 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, February 2014]

– []

     The broken tradition between hominins and humans. – [Giorgio Buccellati, November 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. – []

     A basic guide to field work, including survey and excavation, pre- and post-excavation concerns. Very detailed and practical. – [Laerke Recht, February 2016]

     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]

      [notes in progress] – [Laerke Recht, July 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, August 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 acrime investigation, which offers the real similarity to archaseological reason.] – [Giorgio Buccellati December 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, October 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 congurence 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, February 2015]

      [notes in progress]. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

      [notes in progress]. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

     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, September 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, September 2014]

     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 – January 2015]

     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, February 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 otehr 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, November 2014]

– [Giorgio Buccellati, November 2013]

– [Giorgio Buccellati, November 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, November 2013]

– [Giorgio Buccellati, November 2013]

– [Giorgio Buccellati, November 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, November 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 rising 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 of 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 â??webâ? 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 stresses much more 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 physicâ??s – the perception remains quite a sketchy and vague 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, November 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, July 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 a 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 Goddess-Mother 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 woman-bull had spread previously to 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 cites another image. During the tenth millennium another new image appears representing a prayerful man 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. The meaning he comes to is that there was an existential problem that generated a cultural and an intellectual change. This absence, felt by man, is transformed into a dynamic force that leads man first to make new images (the woman and bull and the prayerful man) 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 prayerful man; a substantial number of this same figure appeared where they did not exist before. – [Elisabetta Cremonesi, October 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, January 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 aare 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 tuypologies, and the archaeological method and technique by which these typologies can be diiscovered nd differentiated, are among the most exciting issues in theoreticla 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 therby with cognitive elements of archaeology. (p.24) – [Giorgio Buccellati, December 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]

     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, September 2014]

     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, of course is that it help us to see general rules and that these rules work.
     He argues with the European diffusionists (Elliot Smith, Hocart, Perry, De Mortillet), interpreted the cultural context through a hermetic bubble that operated only by two main concepts: progress and regress. According to Childe this synthesis gives to humans a passive role, incapable to be civilized, attributing every attempt to social progress or development to the 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.
     Childe defends that in the endeavor of the reconstruction of past, archeology must impose to the material culture the tenets of anthropology (functionalism and evolutionism). Also, in itself the archaeological record bears the great potential to reveal crucial queries with Marxist salience like the 'motive forces of culture', 'technology' or 'the modes of production'. As a pioneer and believer of the culture-historical approach, Childe closes his argument requesting reconciliation and internal cohesion among diffusionsim, functionalism and evolutionism. – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]

      [notes in progress] – [Laerke recht, July 2016]

      A generic, conclusive, brief, and integrated account on the human (men) experience! It is definitely an emblematic piece, representing at best a salient version of the cultural-historical approach that developed in the Anglo-Saxon tradition. Not exclusively directed to the archaeolists, rather its generic style can easily adapt to a wider audience.
     Childe follows a chronological and topical order dealing narratively with the most memorable achievements of the humankind. The nine chapters of the book tackle the most notable inventions and to what extent they impacted the evolution of man (as Childe infers to it). The firsts chapters chain several improvements including: the physical transformation of man, the environmental conditions, the invention of fire and its effects in the human socializing, the making of tools and the improvements of the living, and the elaboration of the human conscience mainly represented with the development of the artistic behavior and the careful disposal and memory of the dead/ancestor.
     The chapters, 5, 6, and 7 deal with two crucial moments respectively the Neolithic and the Urban Revolution. Childe mentions distinctive social, economic, political changes that transformed once and for all the society and as a consequence the life of man. Some of them include, the invention of agriculture (cultivation of land), pastoralism sedentary life, the social clusters (namely villages), and furthermore the transition towards the urban revolution, with a completely different set of settlement planning in urban areas and characterized with social hierarchies, specialized economy, writing system, monumental buildings and so on. – [Esmeralda Agolli, September 2014]

– [ ]

– [Giorgio Buccellati, January 2014]

[notes in progress] – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

     notes in progress – [Esmeralda Agolli, April 2014]

     The paper represents an emblematic work, which gradually gained notable influence in the theoretical and methodological thought of the discipline. On 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 the result and operate with a fully equipped epistemological, theoretical, methodological and interpretative framework. He puts a 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 the natural sciences like, chemistry, geology, mathematic, statistics and so on.
     The loss of innocence itself, deals a shift of the focus from consciousness through self-consciousness and critical-self-consciousness. Clarke claims for a cohesive conceptual construction of the Archaeological metaphysics which evaluate the most general categories in which archaeologist think 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 relationship between specific hominid activities, social patterns and environment factors and statistical theory; 2) Post-depositional theory - with the nature of relationship between samples and traces including movement, disturbance, erosion transformation, micro-geomorphological and statistical theory; 3) retrieval theory - theory of sampling of surviving record; 4) Analytical theory -including the nature of relationship between observations, testing analysis, selective modeling, storage and so on and 5) Interpretative theory - including the nature of relationship between archaeological patterns established by analysis and verified by experiments and predictions about the unobservable behaviors.
     Salient criticism is given to the classification models of the artifact taxonomy as limited only to strategies that ignore the contextual information and the spatial distribution of the archaeological data.
     Clarke brings into attention the role of the text and to what extent it can be intermingled with the archaeological record always taking into serious consideration their bias status. – [Esmeralda Agolli, March 2014]

[notes in progress] – [Laerke Recht, July 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 1930es (except for one dating to 1918). The titles are divided into the following categories:

     [And yet. The profound impact that the sonet 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 sonet, through echoes that are very much alive even if buried in subterranean receses 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, March 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, August 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 datsets 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 – January 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 – January 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, February 2013]

      Cowgill focusses on the cluster-object and variable association approaches respectively associated with Hodson and Spaulding. Basically attempts to marry both approaches by applying them together to a particular set of data without so much participating in the controversial debate. According to Cowgill, the cluster-object approach as suggested by Hodson offers effective tool for classifying nominal variables usually made of two salient and easily distinguished attributes like shell, temper, jar, bowl and so on.
     Particularly he emphasizes the notion of Hodson on the definition of groups "groups are similar objects that exhibit internal cohesion and external isolation". Indeed, he recognizes that this definition as neatly formulated 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 likely we would be facing a situation where particular variables of a given groups 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 cohesiveness is essential of 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 and can work very well on the classification of two attributes, definitely in a context with multivariate attributes such approach may create controversies. – [Esmeralda Agolli, April 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, October 2015]

      [notes in progress] – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

      [notes in progress] – [Laerke Recht, July 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, July 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 philosophes 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, July 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]

     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, August 2016]

     A fundamental text that brings to full fruition the concept of structure (see 14.10). Here are some of the highlights that are particularly pertinent for my argument.
     However brief, the review of earlier linguistic research is important because of the way in which it highlights the new approach De Saussure proposes. Inter alia, it stresses the importance of defining more precisely the field of study as such (pp. 16 and 31).
     A consideration that is of particular significance for archaeology is that, in contrast with other sciences, the object of study in linguistics is not a given, because it is instead created by the point of view taken by the observer (p. 23).
     It is indispensable to keep the levels of analysis distinct (see also Wölfflin), something which emerges as all the more significantly in relationship to non-linguistic factors (e.g., writing) and to other disciplines (see especially chapter VI of the Introduction). Notoriously, de Saussure hardly ever uses the term "structure," but the concept is at the very core of his thinking. Thus on p. 43, he argues against a cumulative (Kant would say "rhapsodic") piling up of one detail on top of the other, where there may well be organization for the sake of clarity and some kind of extrinsic arrangement of the data (external linguistics). Instead, internal (i. e., structural) linguistics is a system that does not recognize any organizational (structural) principle except its own. – [Giorgio Buccellati, October 2013]

     An important translation, particularly attentive to terminology, which is rendered in ways that reflect the intended sense rather than the original lexical term (thus, "langue" is translated, among other renderings, as "linsguistic structure" or "linguistic system." See also Harris 1987. – [Giorgio Buccellati, January 2014]

     A penetrating overview that treats the significant development of the archaeological thought established in the Syro-Palestinian environment. During the 1970's, "New Archaeology" radiated its influence to this part of the world creating an interesting marriage between the traditional and the American anthropological approach. Denver 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. More effectively this transformation was noticed in areas of study that did not involve theoretical evaluations such as the environmental studies, ceramic typology, stratigraphy or even addressing queries with an analytical emphasis. This interaction however remained inefficient when issues with religious, ethnic, long term changes and philosophy came into play. – [Esmeralda Agolli, August 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 it 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, February 2016]

     Account of the Toltec city of Tula in Mexico, and general background on Toltec culture. – [Laerke Recht, February 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 Hsitorical 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, October 2013]

      [notes in progress]      [Laerke Recht, July 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, August 2016]

     If anything, this book represents one of the few comprehensive attempts in classification. Dunnell succeeds to elaborate at the finest details the conceptual framework of a classification system. Without any doubt, regardless the intensity this work synthesizes from the most basic concepts to highly complicated matters regarding with the relationship of classes, which kind of classification is the most effective for a given situation, or set of data, and to what extent one could derive interpretations.
      As few other archaeologist of the 1970's Dunnell aims the construction of the scientific framework in the archaeological research; on one hand by calling into question the antiquated methods of the Old Archaeology and on the other offering a highly innovative focus towards the scientific research equipped with 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 the research in prehistory in 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. The archaeological research; from the formation of the research query to the derivation of the interpretations is conceptually organized in a dual conceptual framwork: Ideational - things that have no objective existence (ideas) and Phenomenological - things and events easily observed. Given this, our thinking and actions in the archaeological research are likely to deal constantly with the two; our ideas, assumptions, understanding, background about a given matter and our approach in the search and analysis of the phenomena and the objective context of things. Both ideational and phenomenological as research avenues are conceptually placed into a well-integrated operational scheme comprised by: 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 potential to arrange, ideas, things, artifacts, buildings and so on. However the crucial importance according to Dunnell classification as a practical and conceptual tool offers some limitations including: 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) 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.
      An archaeologist and prehistorian should pay serious attention to the evaluation criteria upon which a classification system is valid. For such 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: - 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 in the prehistoric data and especially the artifacts is not highly different from that of Rouse. Moreover Dunnell, refers to his case study on equalization of culture with people schematically designed over the so called type-variety system. – [Esmeralda Agolli, March 2014]

     This is indeed an interesting paper. Mostly concerns on 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 the archaeological theory. He claims for a nomothetic character of the discipline and its great potential to deep through the simple and shallow borrowing of other fields which indeed as he claims only have not contributed in "the building of a cohesive and scientific theory". The epistemological character is equally posed towards the inductive and deductive premises. Theory in itself is portrayed between the phenomenological and ideational distinction. Moreover aspects like the 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 at a universe that is not homogeneous where the rate of change over time plays a fundamental role. Particular criticism is given to the traditional approach understood within the boundaries of the common sense which by enlarge 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, May 2014]

See Chang 1978 "Historical Relity".

     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 – January 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 – July 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, October 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, September 2014]

      – [Giorgio Buccellati – July 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 – February 2015]

[Giorgio Buccellati – ]

     Using an alternative style of narrative, Erdur provides an account of an ethnographers encounter with excavation practices. The essay as constructed in 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, October 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, July 2016]

      [notes in progress] – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

[Giorgio Buccellati – ]

[Giorgio Buccellati – ]

     Four different archaeologists meet at sudden circumstance and begin a discussion on an easily imagined topic: archaeology. The characters are presented by provoking nick names: The Born-Again Philosopher (an overly tired field work 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 to obtain original ideas of other scholars and then publishing them as his); The Old Timer (is the real character, an newly retired university professor, that during his career took seriously two aspects: 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 into a fine and sophisticated discussion that addresses burning issues, that Archaeology was experiencing during the 1980s. The gamma of discussion revolves from the archaeological ethics, to philosophical, theoretical and practical subjects. Flannery sees conspicuously the focus of the new generation leaded as he says by a blind ambition to quick success and a rewarding position. Moreover the obsession to become successful while criticizing without remorse and reflection the work of others, or the enclosure within the university walls, the lack of will to get a grasp of the data in the fieldwork all indicate the ill tendency the discipline has taken. To illustrate this better he refers to one of Schiffer accounts (Schiffer 1978:247): 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.
     The theoretical archaeology (anthropological archaeology) has devoted to very limited boundaries. The so-called, problem-oriented approach in archaeology over more than 20 years developed a particularistic research strategy only capable to see particles but not the entire complexity of the context. The inappropriate and somehow isolated focus of the archaeological philosophy is even more exaggerated. More than the production of general laws and the models of predictable behavior, the deep need to accordingly know how to collect and assess the artifacts, structures, organic, environmental and other types of data 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, also is an indispensable tool but always and only when intertwined with the data, context and dirt. – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]

      [notes in progress] – [Laerke Recht, July 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 chefly from a single text created by a single author and specifically without dependence on an oral tradition», p. 6 n.12). This, 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, March 2014]

     notes in progress; – [Esmeralda Agolli, March 2014]

      A nonconformist voice that deals with the implications of the understanding of knowledge and its hermeneutics. Foucault offers a vibrant approach that tackles critically the broadly defined emphasis of the humanities reconfiguring knowledge into its deepest and comprehensive labyrinths. The book constructs a methodological framework equipped with leading concepts of the thinking and formulating. Archaeology does not come addressed in its own premise, it can be better evoked as Focault's Archaeology which infers a methodological scheme which chains into a systemic order our thoughts, the levels thinking, object and regularities of discourse, and the reach of the statement. The criticism mostly focuses on the premises on structuralism implying a multidimensional level of query and research. – [Esmeralda Agolli, September 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, January 2015]

      – [Giorgio Buccellati]

      Includes Minard's statistical graphics of Napoleon's 1812 campaign in Russia. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

– []

      – [Giorgio Buccellati, July 2016]

      – [Giorgio Buccellati, July 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, March 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 cleary 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, September 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 Lévy-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, July 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]

[]

      [notes in progress] – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

      – [Giorgio Buccellati]

     A very specific case study of the relationship between archaeology and politics, especially nationalist movements. The focusses on American involvement in archaeology in Iran, Turkey, Egypt and Iraq in the two decades following WWI. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

      Another contribution to the archaeology-anthropology debate, also containing a historical account: – [Laerke Recht, July 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]

      [notes in progress] – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

     A purely preliminary attempt, as Greenberg admits, to 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 at most this issue. The two main methodological agendas like the comparative and typological linguistics are initially treated. Heavy criticism is paid to the historic-genetic method, recognized as one given strategy leaving no gap for further evaluations and classifications. Also, in similar terms are treated the racial classification and generally the classifications of the nineteenth century which identified three types: isolating, agglunative and inflective.
     Greenberg sees the lack of the 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, Sapir but relies on a inductive quantitative scheme that concludes into 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 evaluated for its inductive focus applied to the typology of languages. – [Esmeralda Agolli, September 2014]

      [notes in progress] – [Laerke Recht, July 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 mil. 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 mil. B. C. there develops an impressive network of villages; the pile dwelling in northern Italy (from the II mil. B. C.) exhibit a remarkable regularity in the arrangement of houses, even though the size of the settlement is more modest. By the first mil., 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 and Camillo Bartolini, November 2014]

     Beyond any pre-established agenda that have foreseen an organic connection of archaeology with anthropology, archaeology must maintain autonomous focus. Gumerman and Philips criticize the exaggerated intrusion of the formal models explanatory or descriptive (Read and LeBlanc 1978) into the discipline, which create evasiveness between the data and the models explicitly arguing: 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 into a practical ground. The intention is not to ignore or either exclude other fields with evident potential in the archaeological research. Instead, both authors see the discipline pursue an interdisciplinary fashion that employs potential methods, techniques and practices from other fields. Several examples show the application of fields like zoology, botany, the use of the ecotone concept, locational analysis illustrate efficient cases intertwined with archaeological data. Gumerman and Philips argue for a more significant role of the archaeological techniques and also a greater communication among the Classic, Near Eastern studies or the History of Art. Anthropological theory cannot at all be neglected, rather topic-related subjects that most benefit to archaeology like, economics, psychology, or geography must be given priority. – [Esmeralda Agolli, September 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, August 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 on their understanding and interpretation. – [Esmeralda Agolli, July 2014]

– []

     Harris offers a brief and explicit overview. The few pages of the paper provide a clear emphasize 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, June 2014]

– []

     Commenting in depth de Saussure's book (see Harris 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 applciation): "at no level of linguistic observation are simple autonomous units to be found" nor is there ever "just a single dimensions 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, February 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 thaty are applied to the data. Extensive excerpts from the book give the major pertinent statements on this topic. – [Giorgio Buccellati, November 2014]

      [notes in progress] – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

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

     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. Similarly with other approaches of this time the culture system remains at the center of attention. To this day, however 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 accounts 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, July 2014]

     An useful overview on classification and typology. It focuses on the emic types and how ethnographic case studies contribute in the understanding and designation of a meaningful typology. The first part offers a brief historical overview on 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 at different cultures, such aspect has a great impact on the designation of variables and in the construction of etic typology; 2) the particularities of an artifact embodied 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 from people. The scientific queries remain inexplicable in the situations where artisans or apprentices make an artifact on normal routine never concerned on any formal schooling or sophisticated expression and 5) most attitudes and traditions are acquired by imitation. Due to such phenomenon their explanation and typology may remain enigmatic.
     Beyond the above limitations, however, Hayden evaluates highly the potential of correlations between the ethnographic emic types for etic purposes. This analogy may result insightful if carefully are selected the parameters of the data, and also the special attention an individual or artisan dedicates to particular attributes to an artifact. – [Esmeralda Agolli, June 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.]

     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 particualr focu of the artticle 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 wrods, 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. 329 f.) 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 andd conformity (p. 330 f.) and intentionality, where it is sugegsted 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 tghe problem of a broken tradition that is not sufficiently taken inot account.] – [Giorgio Buccellati, February 2016]

     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 betetr 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, February 2016]

[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 Aufzeichnungenzu 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 denGang 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, February 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, April 2013]

     An intense account, full of analysis and results on 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 on the 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 the 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 then 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, October 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, November 2013]

      [notes in progress]. – [Giorgio Buccellati, July 2016]

     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, April 2013]

      [notes in progress]. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

      [notes in progress]. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

      [notes in progress]. – [Laerke Recht, July 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, February 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 inthings their "objectness, a stand-in-thewayness to things that resists, that forms, that entraps and entangles" (p.13). – As part of this approach, it is stated that "humans arething, ... 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. –
     (2) 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, February 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 excerpt] 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 several data found during the excavation. – [Marco De Pietri, November 2014].

     [notes in progress] – [Giorgio Buccellati, July 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 the archaeological data. Hodson follows a hierarchical order explaining the ambiguity of basic concept like the attributes which at cases may refer to a variable (color, width, length) or is used to describe a certain state. The perception and delineation of the type as well bears some ambiguity. Hodson avoids the dissection (defining a type based on metric differences) using rather the properties of the material (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 analyze the properties of a type. – [Esmeralda Agolli, March 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-ā-vis Kant [in spite of the term Critique of Historical Reason being used in Holborn's title, there is no discussion as to what this phrase, originally chosen as the title of Dilthey's work, was eventually dropped]. An interesting argument is made (p. 106 f.) 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). – [gB - October 2013]

     The paper offers high level theory on the conceptualization of classification and treats the benefits and flaws of several philosophical approaches. It maintains a general focus, not immediately associated with the archaeological context. Hollinger takes a universal perspective on classification analyzing three particular categories: natural classification, modified conventionalism and radical conventionalism. He argues over the agendas of several philosophers like Hampshire, and Goodman who imply extensive skepticism classification seeing it as a process defined by natural laws. Instead, Holliger sees the study of classification through a relativist agenda, alternatively named as "pragmatic opacity" and attempts to achieve an objective scheme of classification regardless the conventional interventions on the matter. Indeed, elements such culture, language, time and place have an undisputed role at any theory building on classification. However, according to Hollinger, such matter cant either be 'submitted' to the laws of nature or be entirely ignored. – [Esmeralda Agolli, August 2014]

     A very insightful work, this bookhas direct relevance for the concerns of CAR in two ways. First, the concept and the process of iconology as described here bears significantly, if only implicitly, on the concept of archaeological reason. Second, the broad historical contextwithin which the specific work of Panofskyis placed serbes to illuminatethe role that philosophy has had in its interaction with art history, and in so doig Holly contributes to a better understanding of how archaeologivcal theory can be placed in turn in its wider context.
     Holly's great merit is to present these complex issues in a penetrating, yet very lucid style, from the more ynthetic overviews of the precedents and the contemporaries of Panofsky (chapters 1 and 4 respectively), to the detailed analysis of Panofsky's relationship to Wölfllin (ch. 2), Riegl (ch. 3) and Cassirer (ch. 5). Thus, for instance, the discussion of Riegl's Kunstwollen is in line with the idea of the contrast between broken and connected tradition. Archeaological Reason aims to recreate the shared values which are no longer shared, and Kunstwollen as the "stylistic intent" (p. 74) is just that.
     In the last chapter, Holly indicates how the late Panofsky began to "neglect more and more" his theoretical presuppositions, (esp. p. 174): my assumption is that, in fact, Panofsky was not as keen about the theoretical dimension of his approach as it may seem. She relates (pp. 171-174) various opinions that fault Panofsky for such a lack of theoretical coherence, and
     art history as contributing to modern thought – [Giorgio Buccellati, March 2016]

      – [Giorgio Buccellati, July 2016]

– []

     [notes in progress]. – [Laerke Recht – July 2016]

     In this contribution to the topic of digital archaeology, Huggett especially discusses the issue of standardisation. The use of digital applications and recording assumes a positivistic, objective and unproblematic approach to archaeological data and observation. Setting aside the questioning of this assumption in the last decades, other issues remain, including standardisation. Standardisation is required in order to place data within a system (Huggett calls it "cyberinfrastructure", but the point applies equally to non-digital systems). It allows extensive comparison and linking of data, but runs the risk of over-simplifying data and losing complexity. Any recording also involves interpretation of exactly what is included: this always means that some aspects are left out because they are deemed insignificant or not contributing knowledge. However, "it is difficult to argue against the need for standards: one need only come up against a large chaotic set of data to realize that some degree of standardization has its place" (p. 542).
     Huggett argues that while standardisation is a pre-requisite, it is increasingly important in digital contexts that the standardisation process itself is well-considered and transparent. For this purpose, he offers a list of questions that can be used as a kind of check on one's process.
      This paper is part of a World Archaeology volume dedicated to digital archaeology. See Lake 2012.
– [Laerke Recht – August 2016]

     CAA meetings have taken place since 1973, yet the field is still often described as emerging. This may partly be an issue of semiotics, with a shift from 'archaeological computing' and 'computer archaeology' to 'digital archaeology', 'computational archaeology' and 'archaeological information science'. This shift reflects broader changes in the sciences and humanities (influenced by politics and funding requirements), but also indicates a possible crisis of identity in the discipline.
     Huggett discusses this question of identity by attempting to define the field and its role - is digital archaeology (by whatever name) a field in its own right, or merely a sub-field or tool of archaeology? In order for it to become a field in its own right, it needs what Huggett calls 'Grand Challenges' - "As a subject area, digital archaeology receives rather than gives, which means that it is rarely perceived as a donor or reference field. Where are the 'big ideas' that are generating large-scale finance, and which have the potential to transform the practice of archaeology and contribute to theories and methods in other fields?" (p. 16).
     Quoting Llobera, Huggett points to the fact that digital archaeology has not adequately tranformed archaeology and how we approach the information we collect, and we fail to seriously undertake theoretical discourse - "We are able to record information much more quickly in the field but to what degree is this 'new information'? How much has it changed the way we conduct our analysis? We have the capacity to process and visualize information in novel ways but are we actually doing this? More importantly, are we even thinking about new possibilities? How do these new developments relate, if at all, with theoretical orientations currently found in archaeology? Has the introduction of information systems precipitated new ways of doing archaeology? . . . In some cases, archaeologists brush off any concerns about these deficiencies by claiming that they are just archaeologists and not computer scientists. They are simply applying what is on offer and that is that. All that is needed then is to mention the limitation to make it right and to proceed as usual. Actively engaging in understanding the underpinnings of applications, let alone developing them, is generally not considered to be archaeology even among many of those trained in IT within the discipline" (p. 17, quoting Llobera 2011, p. 217). – [Laerke Recht – January 2015]

     [notes in progress]. – [Laerke Recht – July 2016]

     One of Husserl's major works on phenomenology, building on the earlier Logical Investigations. The phenomenological approach or method is a 'sience' which seeks to outline and understand the structure of consciousness and how phenomena are presented or given to us through consciousness. Husserl is particularly concerned with what he calls intentionality, that is consciousness of. In order to focus on the workings of consciousness (rather than its content), Husserl uses the concept of epoché, a 'phenomenological reduction' which involves a suspension of what he calles the natural attitude, the bracketing of the positing of being. In other words, the question of reality (partly a reaction to the Cartesian problematising of the knowledge of existence) is put aside, irrelevant, for the purposes of phenomenological investigation. [Laerke Recht, May 2013]

      [notes in progress]. [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

      – [Giorgio Buccellati – July 2016]

     This essay provides a good discussion of the effect of reading printed paper versus reading on a screen, surveying the current status of research on the topic. Various studies have suggested that reading on a screen is mentally more challenging, makes it more difficult to concentrate, and tends to be taken less seriously. Other studies do not find significant differences.
      One reason for screen-'reading' to be more difficult might be the way the brain processes text: as a kind of 'topography' similar to the way landscape is perceived and remembered, which is less clear on a screen. Screen texts limit navigation and the overall feel of where you are, and this seems to impair comprehension - "Because of their navigability, paper books and documents may be better suited to absorption in the text."
     There are also studies suggesting that memory-turned knowledge is better when reading paper compared to a screen. The survey is very interesting in terms of measures to be taken and the attitude of the reader/user when creating digital texts. - [Laerke Recht, March 2016]

     Short explication and analysis of the recent replication of the Chauvet Cave. The question is asked as to when it is justifiable to close a site to the public and instead offer the replication. And how does the replication affect the original and interpretations thereof? Replication is reproduction and itself always involves some level of interpretation, even if it aims to mirror the original as closely as possible. In terms of a cave like this, consideration must be given to temperature, humidity, lighting, topology, landscape, environmental setting and which parts to include. Decisions regarding all of these are interpretations, and in the case of Chauvet, it was decided to focus on the most spectacular pieces of art. That means that other things are absent, e.g. the unevenness of the floor, the exact physical setting (most likely unreplicable in any case). - [Laerke Recht, August 2016]

     [notes in progress] - [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

     The book is divided into eight chapters, in which the author retraces the vicissitudes of the icons from the eve of the Red Revolution (end of the XIXth century) to the fall of the URSS (end of the XXth), passing through the exodus towards Europe of Russian intelligencija and the terrible persecutions of the Bolshevik government. Jazykova looks at the phenomenon of Russian iconography as the expression of a spiritual sensibility deeply rooted in orthodox faith, and for this reason she follows the tradition of icons not only in Russia but also in those places (such as western Europe) where Russian sensibility and faith found a fruitful ground for their growth during the "red terror" and still find a place of expression in contemporary iconographic schools.
     The author supports this thesis: there is no ground to "the idea that the icons' tradition was broken and that icon painters today have to start from scratch" (p.27). [This helps define the notion of a broken tradition, 2.3, by highlighting the subterranean elements that may help a tradition survive in terms of sensibility, even when the outward formal mechanisms no longer remain active.]
     In the second chapter, talking about the exodus towards Europe of Russian intelligencija, she clarifies her opinion with Grigorij Krug's words: "The veneration of icons in the Church is like a lighted lamp, whose light will never die. It was not turned on by human hands, and since then it has never failed. It shined, shines and will never cease to shine. And when, due to the absence of religious piety, the creative energy of the icon dries up and it seems to lose the glory of its heavenly dignity, even then the light dries up, but continues to shine" (p.55). De facto, Russian iconography shared the destiny of the life of the Church, which was forced to take clandestine forms in USSR territories. [It may be legitimate to speak about a "icons' samizdat", that always maintained alive their tradition. And this samizdat is connected to the lives of single personalities: Dimitrij Stelleckij, Nun Ioanna, Grigorij Krug, Marija Sokolova, Father Zinon Teodor.] – [Margherita Grassi, October 2014]

     A so-called 'Digital Dark Age' occurred with the advent of the first digital advances, both in archaeology and other disciplines. This Dark Age consisted of a lack of digital infrastructure to match the new technologies, meaning that data was lost because the means did not yet exist to preserve it in its new format. While the problems of this are now largley solved, the author wants to try to mitigate a second Dark Age especially related to the use of social media as an archaeological tool. Social media here includes blogs, networking sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, academia.edu), collaboration tools (e.g. Skype, Wikia, Google Drive, Dropbox), and multimedia sharing sites (e.g. Flickr, YouTube). Although much of the activity here may not contain meaningful information in the long term, some does and the concern is that currently very few measrues exist for preserving them.
     The preservation of digital data is a real concern and one that most archaeologists today must face and consider how to approach. Some of the aspects concerned are listed by Jeffrey as data corruption, media obsolescence, software and inadequate metadata [work on the Urkesh Global Record has in fact in faced all of these at one point or another, and procedures put in place that take them into account].
      This paper is part of a World Archaeology volume dedicated to digital archaeology. See Lake 2012.
- [Laerke Recht, August 2016]

     The article present the practical cases of two Chinese archaeological sites, which pose different problems to conservators, connected to the different materials exposed (stones, mud, earth) and to the area covered by the remains (extremely large in one case, extending to 50 square kilometers). Different techniques have been used on the sites: backfill, chemicals, protective shelters, restoration: in each case a brief explanation of the reasons that brought to the different decisions is presented. These practical examples are interesting in the light of what it presented under the name of "Disposition" in the ninth chapter of CAR: there, in fact, the importance of the appropriate ideological approach to the architectural remains is discussed. [Even though "Presentation" should be a complementary part of this article, the paragraph related to this is unfortunately quite short and leaves the reader with many open questions on the subject.]– [Stefania Ermidoro, January 2014]

     The paper offers a reflective and penetrating voice on hermeneutics and contextual archaeology. Several questions include: to what extent can we approach the past; what defines our thoughts; how our present imposes our views and interpretations towards the past; and how contextual archaeology plays a different role in the understanding and interpretation of the past.
     The first part, offers an overview on the early hermeneutics treating in particular the contribution of the German tradition. In similar vein with other post-processualists, Johnsen and Bjornar derive explicit criticism over processual archaeology especially towards its exaggerated focus on natural sciences and the so-called scientifically tested result. Their relativist perspective instead brings to the discussion the potential of historical explanation with the epistemology of hermeneutics.
     The second part, takes a closer focus on the dichotomy between archaeology and hermeneutics taking as a focal point Hodder and its work on the matter. Although a pioneer in the field Hodder only lifted the surface of the hermeneutics, not being able to offer a robust and cohesive voice regarding its benefits in the contextual Archaeology. Without any reservation both Johnsen and Bjornar mention several of his papers arguing especially for the lack of coherence. Indeed, Hodder was able to pinpoint some valid points in the sphere of hermeneutics; like the impact of our present towards the past, the impossibility to grasp an absolute understanding of the archaeological context, the colonialist impact, the diachronic association of events and so on. At any case however, each of these questions only remained sporadic views expressed here and there never able to formulate a cogent approach in the archaeological hermeneutics.
     The third part, deals with the relevance of hermeneutics to the epistemology of archaeology. Mainly it focuses on the German tradition dealing in particular with the hermeneutics of Gadamer Gadamer 1960, 1977. Gadamer brought into attention the issues of the historical distance, modes of perception, changes in the meaning of words, world views or prejudice. Also he derived a constructive criticism over the early hermeneutics and attempted to perceive hermeneutics not only as a way of thinking as well as a methodological tool that orients out choices while studying the past.
     Finally, Johnsen and Bjornar argue of a coherent use of the hermeneutics in contextual archaeology. Any interpretation in Archeology springs from the present and instead of ignoring such fact we should recognize this as a precondition. Indeed we must consider also that our attempt to approach the past by no means helps our understanding of the present. Gadamer may very well serve as a starting point in the understanding and application of hermeneutics in our field. – [Esmeralda Agolli, August 2014]

     [notes in progress] - [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

     In the 18th century Germany, chronology was a distinct discipline in German universities. Jolles examines the history of this discipline, especially in its religion context and beginnings. It was initially used to support Biblical timelines, but this became more and more difficult to maintain when related to empirical data, which suggested that the world and human habitation extends far further back than the flood. Although the concept of evolution was not yet dominant, some ideas of progression were still present. Kant believed that there is a purpose to human nature, and that there is a steady upwards curve towards the ideal. This is accomplished through the greed and antagonism instilled in humans; humans are destined to achieve goals beyond a quiet and harmonious shepherd life. Partly in contrast, Herder argues from a totality of empirical data as collected by him (rather than Kant's base in moral principles), and argues that cultural adaptations are based on environment. In his view, humans' purpose is in fact the quiet garden life, and this can happen at any stage under the right circumstances, and so is not a unilinear progression towards the ideal.
      In the end, Jolles reaches a conclusion in stark contrast to that of Cremo, seeing the endeavours of chronological research as now entirely detached from any religious bases, "In Germany, the turning point in the philosophical debate was reached with the publication of Herder's Ideen, which proposed an evolutionary model for the development of human society, and with the subsequent criticism of that model on moral grounds by Kant. The effect was to disassociate chronology from religion. This ushered in an era of historical and anthropological inquiry free from dogmatic influence and gave a new lease of life to the discipline of Universalhistorie." (p. 59). - [Laerke Recht, October 2015]

     [notes in progress] - [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

     An excellent manual that deals exclusively with "tools and techniques" (as the subtitle properly says) including the two chapters on stratigraphy and excavation (pp. 150-199).

     After a brief history of the term "archetype," Jung addresses the role of mysticism and the role of dogma as articulated thought that aims to channel intuition. Protestantism led to an increased poverty of symbols, and the study of dreams helps in reassessing the role of dreams (water is given as an example). Three major archetypes are then presented: shadow as a symbol of danger (psychology goes beyond symbols), the soul (not as a dogmatic concept, but as the living eneergy that works as an apriori, p. 29, rooted in perception rather than thought, p. 35f.), and wise man. – [Giorgio Buccellati, January 2014]

     Noting that the concept of collective unconscious has been widely misunderstood, Jung gives a detailed definition. It is a portion of the psyche that does not derive from personal experience. It is in contrast with the personal unconscious, which rests on original personal experiences that have been forgotten. The concept of archetype refers to specific forms that the collective unconscious can take. It corresponds to the "motifs" of mythology, the "représentations collectives" of the psychology of "primitive" people (Lévy-Bruhl), the categories of imagination of Mauss and the elementary thoughts (or "Urgedanken") of Adolf Bastian. This collective unconscious is not developed individually, but inherited. It consists of pre-existing forms, the archetypes, which emerge to the level of consciousness only secondarily and give a specific shape or form to the contents of consciousness. Particular attention is given in the rest of the paper to the question of how such a collective unconscious can be "demonstrated" – [Giorgio Buccellati, January 2014]

To be written – [gB]

      An intriguing subject focused on a grotesque and fictional context. The book, by any mean is not associated to archaeology. The story takes place in the Ottoman Empire implying the heavy constrains and restrictions to everyone under a totalitarian rule. Beyond any expectation and imagination the plot revolves through an epic classification scheme of simple night dreams of the people under the rule. The entire process is conducted formally by a highly important institution of the empire which supposedly uses the dreams as tools for getting an understanding and prediction to the fate and future of the Empire. Indeed the subject can only be inspirational to someone dealing with the artifact classification and probably a reflection that illustrates to what extent etic choices of scientific nature may seriously be challenged by exterior agents. – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]

    The rise of the World Wide Web represents one of the most significant transitions in communications since the printing press or even since the origins of writing. To Open Access and Open Data advocates, the web offers great opportunity for expanding the accessibility, scale, diversity and quality of archaeological communications. Nevertheless, Open Access and Open Data face steep adoption barriers. Critics wrongly see Open Access as a threat to peer review. Others see data transparency as naively technocratic and lacking in an appreciation of eScholarship provides open access, scholarly publishing services to the University of California and delivers a dynamic research platform to scholars worldwide. archaeology's social and professional incentive structure. However, as argued in this paper, the Open Access and Open Data movements do not gloss over sustainability, quality and professional incentive concerns. Rather, these reform movements offer much needed and trenchant critiques of the academy's many dysfunctions. These dysfunctions, ranging from the expectations of tenure and review committees to the structure of the academic publishing industry, go largely unknown and unremarked by most archaeologists. At a time of cutting fiscal austerity, Open Access and Open Data offer desperately needed ways to expand research opportunities, reduce costs and expand the equity and effectiveness of archaeological communication. – [Publisher's abstract.]

    Archaeologists create vast amounts of data, but very little sees formal dissemination. This failure points to several dysfunctions in the current structures of archaeological communication. The discipline urgently requires better data professionalism. Current technologies can help ameliorate this, but scholars generally lack the time and technological know-how to disseminate data. We put forth a model of "‚“data sharing as publishing" as a means to address the concerns around data dissemination. – [Publisher's abstract.]

    Primary data, though an essential resource for supporting authoritative archaeological narratives, rarely enters the public record. Lack of primary data publication is also a major obstacle to cultural heritage preservation and the goals of cultural resource management (CRM). Moreover, access to primary data is key to contesting claims about the past and to the formulation of credible alternative interpretations. In response to these concerns, experimental systems have implemented a variety of strategies to support online publication of primary data. Online data dissemination can be a powerful tool to meet the needs of CRM professionals, establish better communication and collaborative ties with colleagues in academic settings, and encourage public engagement with the documented record of the past. This paper introduces the ArchaeoML standard and its implementation in the Open Context system. As will be discussed, the integration and online dissemination of primary data offer great opportunities for making archaeological knowledge creation more participatory and transparent. However, different strategies in this area involve important trade-offs, and all face complex conceptual, ethical, legal, and professional challenges. – [Publisher's abstract.]

    How is the Web transforming the professional practice of archaeology? And as archaeologists accustomed to dealing with "deep time",” how can we best understand the possibilities and limitations of the Web in meeting the specialized needs of professionals in this field? These are among the many questions posed and addressed here. With contributions from a range of experts in archaeology and technology, this volume is organized around four key topics that illuminate how the revolution in communications technology reverberates across the discipline:
1. approaches to information retrieval and information access;
2. practical and theoretical concerns inherent in design choices for archaeology's computing infrastructure;
3. collaboration through the development of new technologies that connect fieldbased researchers and specialists within an international archaeological community; and
4. scholarly communications issues, with an emphasis on concerns over sustainability and preservation imperatives.
This book not only describes practices that attempt to mitigate some of the problems associated with the Web, such as information overload and disinformation, it also presents compelling case studies of actual digital projects - many of which are rich in structured data and multimedia content or focused on generating content from the field "in real time",” and all of which demonstrate how the Web can and is being used to transform archaeological communications into forms that are more open, inclusive, and participatory. Above all, this volume aims to share these experiences to provide useful guidance for other researchers interested in applying technology to archaeology. – [Slightly modified publisher's abstract.]

     Kant attempts to establish the limits of pure reason and secure a legitimate range and mode of operation. He turns his attention from the scrutiny of being to the human experience of it, and by establishing the limits of experience, he is able to criticise the claims to knowledge that exceeds them (xvi).
     Kant's enquiry has two sides: 1) the objects of pure understanding and a priori concepts, and 2) the investigation of pure understanding itself - it's possibilities, cognitive facilities and subjective aspect.
     All knowledge begins with experience but does not necessarily arise from experience - we receive experience through impressions, and these may be difficult to distinguish from the 'raw material' or the 'thing itself' (pp. 41-42). Kant wants to distinguish between 'a priori' knowledge (also 'pure', strictly universal knowledge, absolutely independent of experience) and 'empirical' knowledge, gained through experience. – [Laerke Recht, March 2013]
     [For the relevance of Kant's Critique to CAR see the entire chapter 15 of CAR and the digital monograph on Kant.]

– [ ]

– [ ]

– [ ]

     Kant's second Critique is an exploration of the faculty of desire. It largely deals with (the possibility of) freedom and the law of morality, seeking to understand their universalizability. [Laerke Recht, May 2013]
     [For the relevance of Kant's Critique to CAR see the entire chapter 15 of CAR and the digital monograph on Kant.]

     In his Third Critique, Kant sets out to investigate the faculty of judgement, which he considers as properly placed understanding and reason, cognition and desire - essentially the subjects of his first two critiques. Kant seeks to discover if there is an independent a priori principle governing the faculty of judgement (thus making it universal), and if so, what it consists of. This, in particular, leads to Kant's analysis of the aesthetic. [Laerke Recht, May 2013]
     [For the relevance of Kant's Critique to CAR see the entire chapter 15 of CAR and the digital monograph on Kant.]

– [ ]

– [Giorgio Buccellati, March 2014]

     With a case study of some sites with rock carvings in Sweden, the authors demonstrate how a dichotomy is created between experts (archaeologists, in this case the heritage management) and the public or laymen. The only communication to the public is through signposts, and these almost function as totem poles, as territorial markers, both geographically and intellectually. Through the signs and the ultimate covering up of the carvings (protected from the public, for the public), the right of interpretation, the right to the past, is delimited to the experts. – [Laerke Recht, October 2014]

     To what extent paradigms established in linguistic can no longer apply to ethno-science? In a diachronic and analytical order, Keesing diagnoses the convoluted relationship between the two, showing a growing reluctance for the implications of the linguistics/grammar paradigms into ethnography, archaeology, culture and so on.
     The paper focuses on three aspects: 1) Ethnoscience and pre-transformational linguistics - the enthusiastic studies that drew parallels between linguistic and cultural grammar undertaken in the taxonomic fashion are considered here (see excerpt); 2) The new ethnography and the new linguistics - a growing separation between the two occurred with the appearance of the new linguistics, mostly associated with the influence of Chomsky, recognized widely as the transformational model (Chomsky 1957, 1980). The new linguistics developed heavy criticism over the older taxonomic model of grammar attempting to pursue the 'linguistics competence' through speech, behavior and performance. The new ethnography on the other hand, shifted increasingly the attention towards the nature of culture and to aspects not necessarily similar to those of linguistic grammar. In particular, Kessing argues that the theory of culture bears an immensely different character not to be negotiated with the structure of language. In an inclusive dimension culture comprises a far more complex nature compared to that of language. 3) The new cognitive anthropology - this portion dedicates to Keesing's advocacy on cognition. An emphasis from McCulloch (1965: 395-397), p. 317, illustrates this better: That man, like beasts, lives in a world of relations, rather than in a world of classes, or propositions seems certain.
     According to Keesing, cognition is more than the provisional mapping of the mind, rather offers the potential to describe the human being in the form of a cultural grammar. Ethnography is in desperate need for a universal theoretical design able to configure the universal configuration of the theoretical mind. The collection of the empiric data or any type of inductive analysis must not play any role at all. Instead, through the theoretical premises culture must be perceived within a wider focus than that of the linguistics. This understanding abolishes any kind of parallel relationship or influence from the two. The involvement of linguistics can serve to culture theory only when it conveys a cultural attribute, for instance the ethnography of communication. In this regard, Keesing sees particular developments, like the 'general sematics' which beyond the structural grammar, or formalistic classification prioritize the nature of speech and content expressions and to what extent they represent culturally loaded behaviors. – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]

     The paper offers a narrative overview on theories of culture with implicit analysis on their goals and potentials both on archaeological and ethnographic research. Three main streams are discussed including: cultures as adaptive systems, ideational theories of culture and cultures as sociocultural systems.
     Keesing goes on analyzing critically each tradition, and favors the ideational/cognitive theory perceiving culture as an ideational system or alternatively a system of competence (p.86): the structure of cultural system is created, shaped and constrained by individual minds and brains. What forms culture take depend on what individual human can think, imagine and learn, as well as on what collective behaviors shape and sustain viable patterns of life in ecosystem. Cultures must be thinkable and learnable as well as viable. – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]

     A detailed early statement about the importance of distributional analysis, based on binary oppositions, as applied to typology, for which see excerpts in the Synopsis section of this website. The article develops the theoretical dimension of the distributional system, configured as s tree, and provides an example for a given set of attributes from Mesopotamian glyptics. – [Giorgio Buccellati, February 2014]

     [notes in progress] – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

     This is a concise but inclusive survey of the theoretical thought in archaeology. Klejn offers a completed synthesis that relies on traditions, topics, problems that time or practice has proven right or wrong and so on. Very explicitly it intends to minimize the voice of sceptics regarding the utility of theory in the field implying: 'without theory scientific life is not life at all'.
     Indeed the survey meets the controversies and clashing's of several traditions. Definitely, Klejn sees this as a challenge and claims the difficulty to either reconcile or combine them. A particular dimension however is the relationship between the objectivity and partisanship which seems to have characterized at most the theoretical thought in archaeology. – [Esmeralda Agolli, October 2014]

     The present study represents a condensation of much of the theoretical thinking in archaeology by Leo Klejn of St. Petersburg over the past half century. It has in itself been underway for a decade or two in step with the timid opening, later the fall of the Soviet Union and the rebirth of Russia.
      The volume is the result of the collaboration between the general editor and the author, helped towards the end by enthusiastic assistants, and supported by the European Union (INTAS) as well as by Acta Archaeologica.
      Much of Leo Klejn's work has hitherto only been known sporadically in a Western language and little of it in a comprehensive form. It is hoped that the reader will savour this novel and logically consequent, almost neo-modernist perspective on archaeology, as well as its high spirits. – [Publisher's summary]

     An important collection of articles, for which see here Knappet and Malafouris 2008 Introduction – [Giorgio Buccellati, February 2016]

     An insightful overview of the literature, this chapter articulates the distinction between material and human agency (the latter being endowed with intentionality) and stresses the importance to see a symmetrical relationship between the two (in line with Actor-Network-Theory). Importantly, the aim of this volume is not to establish "material" or "nonhuman" agency as some kind of sustainable alternative to the idea of human agency" (p. xvii). The authors stress that archaeology is ideally suited to take a place in this type of analysis, and in fact to "lead the way" and to correct a "woeful under-theorisation" (p.xii) [which idirectly comes close to the goals of the Critique]. The remainder of the introduction presents each chapter stressing the overriding interdisciplinary aim.
– [Giorgio Buccellati, February 2016]

     This article discusses the similarities between the hermeneutic and the middle-Range approaches to archaeolgy. Though they are often presented as opposing methodologies, Kosso argues that they are more similar than their proponents would leave one to believe. The similarities in these approaches touches on the "quest for patterns" that Buccellati discusses in 2.5. – [Heidi Dodgen, February 2013]

     [notes in progress] – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

     – [Giorgio Buccellati, July 2016]

      Among the first publications focused on the classification of artifacts. In the discussion of classification Krieger became rather influential and his approach on the so-called type-variety (subtype) system gained particular support by other contemporary scholars, including Rouse. It maintains an empirical voice and treats in particular the 'what's' and 'how's' that define the types and subtypes in the archaeological data. The definition of type is dually beneficial: 1) considered as an indispensable element that greatly contributes to the understanding of a cultural unit and its relationships and 2) also serves as an organizational tool upon which further examinations are undertaken. Krieger aims to form a standardized scheme of classification divided in four consecutive phases: full description of data, visually determined typologies, classification systems and the true methodological method. The last two however receive a greater deal of attention and become pivotal elements of his approach. With the classification system he points out five theoretical aspects that form a type. Thus, parameters like form or function and especially the so-called genetic relationship (changes over time) and genetic sense meaning the categorization of data according to the compositional elements are of prior importance. The typological method defines the components of the type - emphasizing specimens which look as though they had been made with the same or similar structural pattern in mind. An integral division within the type is the subtype designated various properties of the type. – [Esmeralda Agolli, May 2014]

     [notes in progress] – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

Structural Anthropology p. 278

     «"Structure" appears to be just a yielding to a word that has a perfectly good meaning but suddenly becomes fashionably attractive... Of course, a typical personality can be viewed as having a structure. But so can a physiology, any organism, all societies and all cultures, crystals, machines – in fact everything that is not wholly amorphous has a structure. So what "structure" adds to the meaning of our phrase seems to be nothing, except to provoke a degree of pleasant puzzlement.» (p. 325). This passage is quoted and taken seriously by Lévi-Strauss 1952 "Ethnologie" p. 304.

      This piece maybe easily defined as the most unique and influential voices in the sphere of the history of science. Kuhn offers in inspirational overview on the revolution of science and its historical course over the many centuries of human activism. Clearly it maintains a relative emphasis, expressing a notable controversy towards the formalist views and approaches on science. Kuhn argues for a scientific enterprise (facts, laws, and theory) that relies heavily on a great variety of factors including, time context, external constrains, skill, attention and interest of the scientist and so on. The discussion on science breaks rather openly the steady and mythical standpoints and focuses on a rational understanding of science and its transformation over time. Revolution, normal science and paradigm are the keywords of the volume. Kuhn perceives the development of normal science within the creation, consistence, transformation and longevity of the paradigm. The main conceptual tools of normal science including, law, theory, application and instrumentation comprise the spine of a scientific formulation and paradigm is the theoretical synthesize of the comprising facts. Seen from a relativist perspective over time the so-called paradigms inevitably became subject of reconsideration. It is properly during this process that their status quo changes by being either modified or entirely disputed; a process widely recognized as the 'paradigm shifts'. Progress in normal science occurs exclusively within this process of recirculation. Not only, is due to such understanding that a scientist must perceive the transformation as a normal and unavoidable process of his work. – [Esmeralda Agolli, July 2014]

     Lake introduces a whole issue of World Archaeology dedicated to the subject of open data and its impact and implications for archaeology. This includes what he aptly calls a 'democratisation' of the production and consumption of information. The term 'open' is very specifically defined as "A piece of content or data is open if anyone is free to use, reuse and redistribute it - subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and/or share-alike" (p. 471). This can include not only archaeological data, but also software, publications and audio-visual material. An important distinction most relevant to the case of the Urkesh Global Record is the one between making a written report 'open' (e.g. an excavation report or journal paper) and making the 'raw' data accessible.
     Some of the issues discussed here and in the papers of the volumes are willingness to share, levels of expertise, and standards and sustainability.
     See also Huggett 2012; Beck & Neylon 2012; Ducke 2012; Jeffrey 2012. – [Laerke Recht, July 2016]

     Introductory work on indexing, categorisation and abstracting, especially in library studies. Particularly of interest here are the comments on the attention needed for indexing of items other than traditional books or articles, such as other media, including films or web sites and electronic documents. On p. 25 is a quotation of relevance to how we approach data and evaluate data on the internet, as opposed to for example a book, "The first step in indexing a Web site is to get a feel for the amount and type of material to be indexed. You can hold the page proofs of a book in one hand and flick through them. You can't do this with the Web, so you have to systematically examine the site, taking note of the sort of information, the amount of detail, and the quality of the navigation links. Check the size of files in megabytes. Ask the Webmaster to provide as much information as possible about the files, including the number of authors who have contributed Web pages. The more authors, the more variation you can expect, and the more sampling you should do." (quoting Browne 2001). – [Laerke Recht, July 2013]

     A critical assessment of Foucault's work in his effort to "identify the subterranean code from which derive the (historian's) discursive statements": what happens is that he is unable to "include within his perspective (what amounts to) a blind spot which he continues nevertheless to presuppose" (p. 47). His "archaeological" effort aims at identifying the breaking points in tradition rather than the continuities, but while seeking to do that, he is in fact missing out on the long standing effort of the historian to discern the mental template of the ancients (p. 48, here Lascar quotes Paul Valéry who speaks of "la machine mentale possible ou probable de ces gens-là" (Cahiers, La Plüiade, Vol. 2). The "archaeological project aiming for the exhumation of presuppositions" (p. 49) leads to the admission of an inevitable "delay of (Foucault) the archaeologist" because "the method reaches its goals by forgetting its own conditions of what was possible, thus exposing itself to the skepticism which it had itself aroused" (pp.51-53) – [Giorgio Buccellati, March 2014]

     The purpose of the book is to investigate why historical artifacts and monuments sometimes are deliberately destroyed, and under what conditions they are, instead, carefully preserved. It collects papers presented on the occasion of the third World Archaeological Congress, firstly due to meet in New Delhi in 1994 but that due to some controversies connected to the destruction of a mosque in the north Indian town of Ayodhya was postponed and took place on the island of Bra? (Croatia) from 3-7 May 1998.
     Papers gathered into this publication inevitably reflect the events, problems and debates which laid behind the organization of the Congress: they all highlight, even though from different perspectives, the links between archaeology, history, conservation and political strategies. Archaeology is defined as "a scientific discipline and a socio-political enterpise" (p. 43): many practical examples of this are provided, with a special focus on what happens in developing countries.
     The role of archaeology and the use of history for the emergence of the modern feelings of belonging to a State are debated in this book, with the connected questions on the relationship between archaeologists, conservators and stakeholders communities and on the possible methods of communication between academic world and the other people. Even though these pages presents only practical examples and data, connected to specific cities or single monuments in various countries of the world, it is extremely interesting since it provides an overview of different approaches to conservation. Ultimately, the reader is prompted to exhaminate the consequences of archaeology on societies, and on the specific position of the specialists operating in the conservation as for the circulation and the awareness of historical knowledge.– [Stefania Ermidoro, June 2014]

     An important article that spells out the significance of structural linguistics for the author's anthropological research (see especially pp. 37 and 62). The three major characteristics of structural analysis (discussed in CAR Chapter 15) are discussed, albeit with different terms.
     (1) Relationality is at the core of the concept of structure (as it will remain throughout L.-S.' career): he speaks of a "phonetic revolution" (p. 41) and identifies "elementary" forms in ways that differ substantially in concept from the otherwise similar approach of Radcliffe-Brown (p. 60-62).
     (2) Inclusivity is addressed with reference to the systematic universalism of structural analysis (vs. atomism, p. 41), and to a "table" ("tableau") seen as the description of the whole (p. 44-46). Particularly significant in this respect is the discussion on. p. 56 f. concerning the kinship system as a unitary whole. In an indirect way, there is also an allusion to the significance of statements of non-occurrence (7.10 and 13.8).
     (3) Referentiality emerges from the correlations between the system of "appellation" and the system of "attitudes" (p. 45). – [Giorgio Buccellati, January 2014]

– [Giorgio Buccellati, January 2014]

– [Giorgio Buccellati, January 2014]

     Developing further the methodological reflection that had informed the study of kinship terms, L.-S. argues for an analogous methodology applicable to myth. It is as if a programmatic study for the major work that will develop some ten years later with the volumes in the series Mythologiques. Here I will stress especially the importance attributed to the aspect of totality, as on pp. 242f and 250 where he stresses the need for a global or universal approach, where not a single variant of a myth is left out of consideration (15.5.1 and 15.6). Also significant is the reference to "paquets de relations" (pp. 234, 237), and to a comprehensive "tableau" that becomes sufficiently complex to acquire a three-dimensional reality (p. 241, 253).
     It is intersting to note how the complexity of the formal representation of these data leads him to speak (p. 253) of (physically) enormous card cabinets, and to mention the potential use of punched cards and "mecanography." [It is also interesting to note that L.-S. ignores the work of Cassirer, who was in New York (at Columbia) at exactly the same time as L.-S. As noted by Caws 1997 Structuralism, p. 43, L.-S., in a personal communication, indicated that he had missed a lecture by Cassirer at the Linguistic Circle in New York (Cassirer 1945 Linguistics), and that he became acquainted with his work only much later.]. – [Giorgio Buccellati, January 2014]

     Lévi-Strauss' method in the study of myth is interesting, because he believes in the possibility of finding some patterns in the difficult land of the mythic thought. In his opinion a myth is a linguistic expression and it has to be studied in the same way as language. However, unlike a normal linguistic expression, a myth has more complex characteristics (mythems), which have to be located on the level of sentences, the highest level of a linguistic expression. For this reason, Lévi-Strauss suggests to translate the succession of myth's events into sentences as short as possible. In this way, he obtains some larger constitutive units that are in relationship among each other [This process is comparable with Propp's method, who simplifies the complex structure of folktale in some constitutive elements and their relationship]. He finds that only in their combination the main constitutive elements acquire meaning. For this reason, a more important and more valuable variant does not exist, because all the variants contribute to constitute the constitutive elements and their combination.
     [However, although this method is interesting because it implies a logic in the mythic thought, it is possible to see some weaknesses. First, it is not so simple to translate the segments of a myth in sentences that everyone can subscribe to for certain. In fact, it is uncertain, for example, that the social problem of autochthony arises from the myth of Oedipus, a meaning closer to the mentality and type of study of LéviStrauss. Therefore, it seems difficult to not divide in "a priori" sections the content of myths.
     Secondly, there is a lack in the definition of myth and of literature. The literature draws its content from myths, but it develops this content in a logical and more monitored way, changing sometimes also the plot. Is it really possible to take these new myths as variants?
     Thirdly, Lévi-Strauss method, as the linguistic structural method, suggests a binary approach to reality. But are we sure that our thought works only in a binary way, with oppositions that, for example, a myth tries to solve or just to express?
     From an archeological point view, if a structural method is followed, it may be subjected to similar objections: Whence does an archeologist try his grammar? Is it an "a priori" work or is it a matter of facts? How is it possible to face the problem of intention or not in the emplacement and deposition? When we have to study something that comes from the human world, is it really a good method the one based on the binary opposition? See 3.5] – [Beatrice Paolucci, October 2014]

– [Giorgio Buccellati, January 2014]

     A series of papers published between 1945 and 1956: they embody the author's programmatic reflection about the relevance of structure and of linguistics. The papers that are more pertinent for our interest are treated separately in this bibliography, and entered accorfind to the date of their first publication. – [Giorgio Buccellati, January 2014]

     In this article Lévi-Strauss explains, analyzes and criticizes the main points of Propp 1958. He appreciates the method of Propp, because he anticipated the structuralism, a method that the French anthropologist also uses. At the same time Lévi-Strauss thinks that some of Propp's conclusions, born from a typical formal approach, are incomplete, because it divides the form from the content. Thanks to Propp it possible to recognize the main characteristics of a folktale, but his contribution does not go further: "Before formalism, we were certainly unaware of what these tales had in common. Since formalism, we have been deprived of any means of understanding how they differ" (p. 133), 14.7.5.
     For this reason, Lévi-Strauss says, after the form's investigation, Propp returned to the comparative analysis. However, not even this method explains the essence of the stories, myths or folktales, because, although the content could change, it follows some rules, and these rules have to be found. The choice of a variant, even the most ancient, does not allow us to get to the real meaning of myths or folktales. However, it is necessary to collect all the variants and identify the main constitutive elements, that Lévi-Strauss calls mythemes. For this reason, Lévi-Strauss thinks that form and content have to be examined by the same method: "form and content are of the same nature, susceptible to the same analysis" (p. 131). He proposes to work on the fairytale in the same way as he works on the American myths, where he searches the binary and ternary oppositions provided with meaning.
     [Lévi-Strauss' critique is interesting also for the study of broken traditions through archeological analysis. In fact, even a careful study of form remains unproductive, if there is no attempt at interpreting them: also in archeology there is always the temptation of dividing meaning from signifier, because it seems impossible to use the same methods to study both of them. The possibility of studying at the same time signifier and meaning, lexicon and syntax, in myth, an apparent uncertain field, suggests that it is possible to fallow the same way in the study of ancient cultures.] – [Beatrice Paolucci, October 2014]

– [Giorgio Buccellati, January 2014]

     The paper infers the epistemology of function in the archaeological data, alternatively named the "alertness principle". An approach rather heavily disputed by Salmon 1982, Philosophy and Archaeology (Chapter 4, p. 70-71). Initially it deals with basic questions like: how and why did some object come into existence? How do we know what they were for? and so on. Indeed, Levin recognizes the difficulty of the backward inference that the archaeological data imposes to such kind of queries. However when it comes to function the paper evokes vaguely a multitask investigation that involves not only the finding of the immediate reason why an object is what it is but also the circumstance in which it is made and used and the social and psychological state of the agent (A) behind it. Due to such complexity it is imperative simultaneously to imply to function (F) questions, related to the object (O) properties and the agent (A) of the making and usage. As Merrilee claims this emphasis does not fully address the complexity of function in the archaeological record, rather puts the entire focus into a simplistic agenda that aims to predict the unpredictable through the scheme of F, O and A. – [Esmeralda Agolli, June 2014]