Jean-Claude Gardin on archaeological data, representation and knowledge: implications for

digital archaeology

Costis Dallas

Abstract This paper presents Jean-Claude Gardin’s distinctive approach to archaeological data, rep-

resentation and knowledge in the context of his early engagement with semiotics and structural se-

mantics, and his grounding in fields as diverse as documentation, classification theory, material culture

studies, argumentation theory, and the philosophy of the human sciences. Pointing at Gardin’s ambiva-

lence vis-à-vis the promises of automated classification and machine reasoning in archaeology, it

shows that his approach goes beyond a normative, positivist conception of archaeological research,

recognising the contextual, theory-laden nature of archaeological data constitution, the priority of fo-

cusing on actual archaeological interpretation practices, and the complementarity between narrative

and formal representations of archaeological reasoning. It connects his early development of archaeo-

logical descriptive and typological metalanguages with his later elaboration of a theoretically-

informed approach to archaeological argumentation, analysis and publication, situates his logicist pro-

gram as a relevant, contribution to the development of an archaeological “theory of practice”, ground-

ed on reflexivity and modesty vis-à-vis the possibility of knowledge and the limits of scientism, and

highlights aspects of Gardin’s work that point to potentially fruitful directions for contemporary re-

search and practice in the field of archaeological informatics and digital humanities communication.

Keywords Jean-Claude Gardin – History of archaeological thought - Logicism - Data constitution -

Knowledge representation – Archaeological reasoning - Digital publication

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Pre-publication version of Dallas, Costis (2015) Jean-Claude Gardin on archaeological data, representation and knowledge: implications for digital archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. The final publication is available at link.springer.com via DOI 10.1007/s10816-015-9241-3.

2

1 Introduction

Jean-Claude Gardin is a seminal figurehead for archaeological informatics. His scholarship transcends

the boundaries of archaeological work, linking out to fields as diverse as documentation, classification

theory, semiotics, material culture studies, archaeological typology, argumentation theory, and the phi-

losophy of the social sciences and the humanities. While his logicist methodological programme has

been followed explicitly only by a relatively limited segment of the archaeological research communi-

ty (see Gallay 1989, 1998; Roux 2004; Barceló 2009; Moscati 2013), his ideas resonate with broader

developments bridging the increasingly digital practices of archaeology, and the interdisciplinary

fields of digital humanities and digital heritage.

Gardin is perhaps the closest the 20th century has produced to a figurehead not of archaeological

computing, but of computational archaeology: an archaeology based on the exploration of the poten-

tial of computability across all aspects of archaeological research, from the production of the archaeo-

logical record through description, to the construction of archeological typologies and the advance-

ment of archaeological explanation. Nevertheless, references to Gardin’s scholarship remain surpris-

ingly scarce in the English speaking literature of archaeological theory and method. This is despite the

fact that extensive parts of his work have been published in English, including his major programmat-

ic synthesis, Archaeological constructs: an aspect of theoretical archaeology (Gardin 1980; in French:

1979). Scholarly reviews of this work have been varied, and he has been largely ignored by recent

handbooks and anthologies on general archaeology and archaeological theory (Bentley et al. 2009;

Bintliff 2004; Greene and Moore 2010; Hodder 2012; e.g., Jones 2001; Preucel and Mrozowski 2010;

Renfrew and Bahn 2012). The last edition of Bruce Trigger’s History of Archaeological Thought does

make a reference to Gardin’s work, but considers his contribution of little theoretical and epistemolog-

ical importance, relegating it merely to the domain of methodology (Trigger 2006). In a contemporary

archaeology mostly occupied with large scale substantive questions, whose disciplinary foundations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

3

were increasingly shaken by the broader concerns and debates linked with post-processualism, Gar-

din’s almost scholastic preoccupation with formal problems of data representation and reasoning may

have indeed seemed somewhat peripheral, and his frequent use of terms drawn from the vocabulary of

positive science was surely dissonant with the rising sensitivities of post-processualist archaeology.

The fact that his approach could be interpreted, both inside and outside the logicist community, as a

prescriptive, positivist dogma may have also contributed to this marginalisation.

Positive accounts of Gardin’s work, and his theoretical and methodological contribution, are therefore

rare. Among them, a well-constructed, canonical genealogy of the intellectual and pragmatic devel-

opment of Gardin’s logicist school, and its relationship with the advances of mathematical and formal

methods in archaeology, was published by leading Swiss ethnoarchaeologist Allain Gallay (1998).

Tito Orlandi, the patriarch of Italian digital humanities and a professor of Egyptology and Coptic stud-

ies in the University of Rome – La Sapienza, proposed a nuanced historical analysis of the “difficult

relationship” between Gardin’s method on the one hand, and archaeological computing on the other,

based on a meta-theoretical account of two large-scale examples of logicist scholarship (Orlandi

2004). Juan Antonio Barceló, professor of computational archaeology in Barcelona, situated logicism,

and its push towards computability of archaeological knowledge, as an essential foundation for com-

putational intelligence in archaeology, further fuelled recently by “[f]uzzy logic, rough sets, genetic

algorithms, neural networks, Bayesian models and agent-based systems” (Barceló 2009, p. 105). Pao-

la Moscati, the editor of the Archaeologia e Calcolatori journal, recently published a consummate

account of Gardin’s early work, re-establishing his seminal contribution to the development of large

scale documentation programmes and descriptive codes for diverse kinds of artefacts and textual ma-

terials (Moscati 2013), which Gardin himself disowned as “unsatisfactory” (Gardin 1996, p. 212) after

he shifted his attention to the formalisation of archaeological argument in the 1970s. Moscati’s analy-

sis substantiates Gardin’s involvement with the humanities and social science research scholarly

community of his times, his active links with scholars such as André Leroi-Gourhan, Claude Levi-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

4

Strauss and Fernand Braudel, his international standards work and pioneering archaeological compu-

tational analyses, and his seminal conceptualisation of databases as “virtual catalogues” and “potential

classifications” (Moscati 2013), an notion which, while advanced more than half a century ago, still

resonates with contemporary developments and approaches to digital heritage.

In light of this scholarship, I provide a reading of Gardin’s work from the viewpoint of current chal-

lenges regarding the information infrastructure of archaeological research, and the emerging landscape

of technologically-mediated knowledge construction and publication in archaeology. My concern is to

address the limited appreciation of Gardin’s work in the English speaking world, and to provide a

framework that will enable workers in the rising field of digital archaeology to benefit from his think-

ing. Gardin’s scholarly output was extensive, but, as my aim is to engage a predominantly English

speaking community on its value, I focus here on using his works available in English. My reading of

Gardin seeks, firstly, to connect his early development of archaeological descriptive and typological

“metalanguages” with his later elaboration of a theoretically-informed approach to archaeological ar-

gumentation, analysis and publication; secondly, to situate his logicist program as a relevant, contribu-

tion to the development of an archaeological theory of practice, grounded on reflexivity and modesty

vis-à-vis the possibility of knowledge and the limits of scientism; and, thirdly, to highlight aspects of

Gardin’s work that point to useful directions for contemporary research and practice in the field of

archaeological informatics and digital communication.

2 Archaeological data, description and classification

Gardin is credited as the initiator of the first actual computer-based analysis of archaeological materi-

als, a numerical classification of Eurasian Bronze axes conducted with Peter Ihm as early as 1958/9

(Cowgill 1967; Huggett 2013), only a few years after quantitative archaeology pioneer Alfred Spauld-

ing had advocated the use of “computing machines” for the statistical discovery of artefact types

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

5

(Spaulding 1953). But, in fact, his involvement with archaeological information had started as early as

1955, when, encouraged by Henri Seyrig, then director of the French Institute of Archaeology in

Beyrut, he designed and implemented an original, indexed, searchable finds catalogue on peek-a-boo

punched cards, “an ancestor of the modern data banks [which] included most of the known tools as-

cribed to the Bronze Age in the Near East — over 4,000 in number — published or unpublished”.

This was followed by experimental catalogues for other classes of archaeological material such as pot-

tery, geometrical ornaments, and iconographic objects (Gardin 1989, p. 6; cf. Moscati 2013). Gardin’s

“Centre d’analyse documentaire pour l’archéologie” was founded soon thereafter as part of CNRS to

take forward this work. As he explains:

“My concern [was] the study of mental processes at work in archaeological reasoning, with a

view to making them amenable to machine handling in a Turing sense — that is, with or with-

out computers. In other words, the goal was not primarily to introduce new information tech-

nology in our discipline, but rather to gain a better control of archaeological reasoning per se,

through some kind of formalization. […] [E]ven simple operations [involved in sorting objects]

raised epistemological and methodological problems of some size: on what basis do we select

the particular features to be used as potential sorting criteria from among others which we de-

cide to ignore? Are the designations of these features unambiguous, so that different observers,

describing the same artefacts or monuments, will come up with the same representations?”

(Gardin 1989, p. 7).

The task of defining documentary languages ( “analytical codes”, “metalanguages”) capable of captur-

ing unambiguously the properties of particular classes of cultural objects (both artefacts and texts) so

as to aid the discovery of groups conforming to a set of specific criteria, was the springboard for Gar-

din’s engagement from the late 1950s until the early 1970s with salient questions of data constitution,

raising both practical and theoretical concerns as to the nature of the archaeological record and the

process of archaeological description. In 1958, he publishes “Four codes for the description of arti-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

6

facts: an essay in archaeological technique and theory”, a remarkable case study of archaeological

methodology based on principles of analytical, rather than synthetic description, achieved through

systematic segmentation of each class of artifacts, and expression of pertinent descriptive traits by

means of a finite set of predefined values for each trait. The four documentary languages (or metalan-

guages, as he would later come to call them), destined for the description of metal tools, containers,

ornament, and iconography respectively, present overlapping problems and approaches. The code for

ornament, for example, employs an artificial syllabic language, where suffixes and prefixes are used to

indicate syntactic “modifiers” bearing similarities with the operators in Dorothy Washburn’s sym-

metry analysis (cf. Shepard 1948; Washburn 1977). The code for iconography, on the other hand,

draws from Erwin Panofsky’s distinction between pre-iconographical description, iconographical

analysis and iconological interpretation (Panofsky 1962). Gardin uses these “three aspects”, “[firstly] a

factual inventory, inferred from the observation of constant relations between certain forms and the

‘natural’ objects which they are meant to represent, [secondly] the ‘conventional’ meaning of the mo-

tifs thus isolated, the allusive quality of the picture which together they compose, [and, thidly] the

‘symbolical’ values of such themes, considered in relation to large cultural context” (Gardin 1958, p.

350) to differentiate between levels of iconographic description characterised by increasing degrees of

subjectivity and, at the same time, richness of signification, a situation analogous to the well-known

trade-off between epistemic warrant and explanatory power in scientific reasoning.

A subsequent article, “Methods for the descriptive analysis of archaeological material”, further sys-

tematises Gardin’s theory of archaeological description by codifying “three kinds of rules, applicable

to the analysis of any of the foregoing data: rules of orientation, rules of segmentation, rules of differ-

entiation” (Gardin 1967, p. 13, my emphasis). Gardin recognises the arbitrary, subjective nature of the

operations of orientation, segmentation and differentiation underlying the construction of descriptive

codes as documentary languages occupying a middle ground between natural language and scientific

language. He admits that the codification process linking artefacts with their symbolic representations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

7

is not strictly formal, the resulting documentary languages are not universal, the reduction of observa-

tions to data is not unique, and, finally, that the analysis performed has no intrinsic cognitive value. He

suggests, nevertheless, that adherence to strictly defined prior conventions or rules for these operations

can ensure the construction of useful potential classifications, even if these classifications consist, at

first instance, by -etic (or purely analytical) classes. The validation of their cultural significance, or

-emic status, lies in his view outside the actual classification, and could be sought, for instance, in

seeking to identify cultural pattern (with regard to time, space, function, etc.) in groupings of artefacts

brought together according to some formal criteria (Gardin 1967, pp. 27–29).

Gardin’s work on archaeological description may be read as an advocacy for the adoption of a pre-

scriptive positivist methodology, equating archaeology with the exact sciences. However, on closer

examination, his motive appears to stem from an acknowledgment that the “focal point for archaeo-

logical theory [is] the concept and operation of classification” (Gardin 1971, p. 191)., and from an

appreciation of the constitutive role of the definition of the archaeological record, through description,

on the production of archaeological classifications, and by extension, archaeological knowledge. Gar-

din objects to Spaulding’s contention that archaeologists are sharply different to humanities scholars in

studying only groups or sets of finds rather than single artefacts (Spaulding 1960), suggesting, instead,

that “archaeologists tend to follow the same general procedure whatever they are studying, be it pot-

tery, sculpture, neolithic or Greco-Roman bas-reliefs, everyday objects or works of art”, and large sets

or single objects. In fact, while Spaulding sees archaeology as a nomothetic social science, Gardin,

stemming from the tradition and the concerns of Classical archaeology, considers archaeology to be an

idiographic, historical discipline. At a time when the introduction of computers to prehistoric archae-

ology accelerates the application of analytical methods of numerical taxonomy, polythetic classifica-

tion and quantitative analysis, he is quick to point out that, routinely, “the archaeologist also classifies

when, without performing any actual calculation, he makes statements of the following kind, so cur-

rent in specialized literature that they appear to be platitudes: ‘x is related to m(n, o, p ,..)’ , ‘the paral-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

8

lels for x are m(n, o ...)’ or again ‘compare x to m(n ...), etc.” (Gardin 1971, p. 191). He thus calls at-

tention to the argumentation structure underlying the narrative form of archaeological publication,

anticipating the launch of his logicist programme a few years later.

Given his view that archaeological argument is based on symbolic expressions relating objects on the

basis of particular properties, Gardin asks:

“[H]ow are the ‘properties’ of the monuments under consideration to be chosen, described and

arranged? The question is of the greatest importance, but it is treated with such scant attention,

if not entirely ignored, in the writings of archaeologists […] It is obvious that classifications or

typologies obtained by any process, whether empirical or formalized, are first and foremost the

product of an initial choice as to how to ‘view’ the monuments, by means of a formulation cho-

sen from an infinite number of possible formulations […] In other words, the initial description

of the monuments, i.e. their arrangement according to a list of properties [...], obviously gov-

erns the results of the subsequent classification, whatever the method employed” (Gardin 1971,

p. 193).

Concerned “to stress the limitations of automatic classification methods, or rather the basic problems

raised by their use in archaeology”, Gardin thus questions the taken-for-grantedness of archaeological

classification. He advises caution at the fetishisation of numerical classification, noting that “[i]t can

and does happen that types defined intuitively by the archaeologist within a collection of given objects

prove to be more meaningful and fruitful than the clusters or other groups calculated by computation

from the same data”, and denouncing the vanity of the quest for universal classification (Gardin 1971,

pp. 194–195). This appears to be the origin of his interest in archaeological description, and a vindica-

tion of his concern with the theory-laden nature of analytical codes. His conclusion, noting the routine

archaeological use of “specialized designations [that] reflect choices as to the manner of viewing

which are apparently so much regarded as ‘natural’ that they are nowhere explained or justified”, is

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

9

that “there is nothing less natural than the language of science; the experimental processes which

alone make it possible to construct this language on a firm foundation generally take us far from the a

priori attitude of immediate perception” (Gardin 1971, p. 194).

To further understand the importance of these considerations for Gardin’s archaeological thought, it is

useful to consider his earlier call, in the 1965 paper “On a possible interpretation of componential

analysis in archaeology” (Gardin 1965a), for a more liberal use of linguistic methods such as compo-

nential analysis to non-verbal, observational (“perceptual”) data such as those constituting the bread

and butter of archaeological description:

“As far as the logical operations involved are concerned […] there is no reason to separate the

linguistic from the non-linguistic interpretation of the method […] Instead of aiming at a formal

ordering of terms, through a study of various physical and behavioral features attached to them,

one could try to organize physical data – here, monuments – on the basis of their semiological

constituents in a given code, [but] because monuments and languages of past cultures are ‘dead’

objects, the archaeologist has little means to establish the kind of initial groupings and discrim-

inations needed in componential analysis” (Gardin 1965a, p. 21).

This distinction between textual documents and archaeological remains forms the rationale for Gar-

din’s early advocacy of a formal methodology and unambiguous, clearly defined schemes for archaeo-

logical description. His adoption of a framework drawing from structural linguistics and semiotics, on

the other hand, becomes the foundation for his subsequent development of a computational theory of

archaeological reasoning.

Writing in 1971, Gardin still considers “documentary applications” – databases allowing the identifi-

cation, filtering and sorting of archaeological facts on the basis of descriptions produced by research-

ers – as central in his account of the potential usefulness of computers in archaeology. He attributes

the reluctance to undertake such projects to the fact that they “presuppose […] a certain degree of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

10

agreement among specialists as to the nature of the data: the choice of corpus, in the case of the 'mon-

uments' to be taken into account, and the choice of descriptive language, in the case of the ‘properties’

to be entered”, and to an attitude against data sharing by traditional scholars “who jealously keep all

this material to themselves”. Yet, despite this, he concludes that “[b]efore twenty years are out we

shall see the rapid, large-scale proliferation of international banks of archaeological data similar to

those already taking shape in certain countries for museum collections […] or inventories of historical

monuments” (Gardin 1971, pp. 197–198). His prediction may have been somewhat optimistic, but,

with the establishment of large-scale archaeological data repositories, registries and archive networks

(Kintigh 2006; McManamon et al. 2010; Niccolucci and Richards 2013; Richards 2002), the devel-

opment that he foresaw almost fifty years ago is now a central part of contemporary archaeological

reality.

3 Schematisation of archaeological reasoning and scholarly practice

Gardin’s article on “Artificial intelligence and the future of semiotics: an archaeological perspective”

(Gardin 1989) starts with an intriguing autobiographical section, casting light on his epistemological

concerns with regard to archaeological knowledge in the 1950s, the developments that led to the

abandonment of his work on archaeological databases (later pursued by other scholars, cf. Borillo and

Gardin 1974; Guermandi 1999; Guimier-Sorbets 1990), and his re-orientation towards the formalisa-

tion of archaeological reasoning in the 1970s. Gardin speaks of his growing detachment from the

computer-based multivariate methods of data analysis (such as Benzecri’s correspondence analysis)

and their scientistic underpinnings:

“our position in the early 1970s was a kind of constructive skepticism with respect to the new

approaches advocated in the human sciences to ‘make sense’, literally speaking, of objects,

events, texts, or behavior of any kind […] What we had come to question, in brief, was the so-

called heuristic strategy which underlay all such approaches — i.e., the assumption, explicit or

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

11

implicit, that the use of a ‘formal’, ‘scientific’ or otherwise established methodology was likely

to improve our ways of making sense of anything human.” (Gardin 1989, p. 13).

Gardin’s disillusionment with the prospects of automatic processing of archaeological descriptions led

to the development of a different research agenda in the 1970s. As he states, “instead of trying to de-

vise descriptive and computational tools that were expected to outdo our traditional or ‘natural’ con-

structs, we now considered the latter as a given, which we had to reformulate” using formalisation as a

methodological approach, i.e. re-expressing traditional archaeological argument in terms of a lexicon

of symbols and a set of argumentation operations (Gardin 1989, p. 14). This had a notable implication:

shifting the focus of inquiry from the domain of data to the domain of interpretation, and from descrip-

tive analysis to an analysis of archaeological reasoning. This shift of emphasis is not unique to Gardin,

but resonates with epistemological concerns shared with the post-proccessual shift towards reflexivity,

contextuality and interpretation (Hodder 1987; Hodder and Hutson 2003).

The shift of attention from descriptive analysis to the analysis of reasoning, prefiguring the develop-

ment of Gardin’s logicist program, is already present in “Document analysis and linguistic theory”,

published in the June 1973 issue of the Journal of Documentation (Gardin 1973). Gardin makes here a

distinction between tabulation methods of document processing, based on the listing and ordering of

lexical items or atomic traits of documents (e.g., in indexes) and interpretative methods, whereby

“natural language (NL) texts (whether of documents or of queries) are the object of more complex

operations: indexing, syntactical and/or semantic analysis, representation in an information or docu-

mentary language; etc.” (Gardin 1973, p. 138). After summarily dispensing with the earlier contribu-

tion of linguistics in the construction of indexes and concordances, semantic tools and grammars, he

turns to demonstrating the links between a free structure indexing approach, formalised in his Syntol

language, and contemporary developments in information science and linguistic theory. He stresses

the rising importance of machine languages, based on the transformation of properties of documents

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

12

and/or queries into binary or ternary statements of a machine language. He critiques the classical theo-

ry of Chomsky’s structural linguistics, whereby “the meaning of a sentence […] is wholly determined

by a syntactically defined deep structure, in which the only semantic data are the various markers as-

sociated to lexical entries”, noting that “the boundary between syntax and semantics becomes so fuzzy

that it is not possible any more to regard syntax as independent nor to confine semantics to an interpre-

tative function.” On this basis, he concludes, “the concept of ‘deep structure’ tends in turn to fade

away: room must now be made for ‘rules operating at a point prior to, or no more ‘abstract’, more se-

mantic-like structures, than the deep structure permitted by classical theory” (Gardin 1973, p. 155).

The convergence of structural linguistics with computer science in the 1960s, and the association of

computational linguistics with knowledge representation and artificial intelligence, becomes a spring-

board for the elaboration and subsequent realization of central aspects of Gardin’s subsequent logicist

program. Drawing from George Lakoff’s association of linguistics with the study of natural logic

(Lakoff 1970), and from his own conviction that “the predicate and propositional calculus of standard

logic provide suitable approximations” of the logical structure of natural language, Gardin advances

the notion of:

“[…] expressing semantic as well as syntactic representations” through ‘n-place predicates’ –

that is, sets of formal attributes – in conjunction with the two following “corollaries”: (a) the

need to categorize the symbols of the vocabulary (words, descriptors) in such a way that for-

mation rules equivalent to the phrase-structure rules of grammar can be stated adequately with

no regard to the grammatical status customarily assigned to the words concerned (b) the need to

account for the derivation of propositions from one another, in the adopted formalism, as a nec-

essary component in the understanding of language behaviour” (Gardin 1973, p. 159).

The identification of these two separate components of document analysis, firstly, of a vocabulary of

descriptive symbols, and, secondly, of rules allowing the derivation of propositions, is an essential step

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

13

for the elaboration of the two central pillars of Gardin’s contribution to archaeological theory: his ear-

lier account of archaeological documentation – apparent in his work on analytical codes, and the fur-

ther codification of methodological terms for archaeological observation and description – and his

subsequent logicist approach to archaeological reasoning. Taken as a unity, these two aspects of Gar-

din’s work constitute an attempt to define a general language for archaeological representation, dis-

course and reasoning.

The major work codifying Gardin’s contribution to the theory of archaeological reasoning is Archaeo-

logical constructs: an aspect of theoretical archaeology (Gardin 1980), published in 1980 as the Eng-

lish version of his Archéologie théorique (Gardin 1979). It is worth noting that the book was originally

announced under another title, “Formal methods in archaeology”. Gardin abandoned this title shortly

before publication, when he realised that “formal methods were only part of the subject,” as he was

led by his research to consider also “non-formal methods” which, he adds, “often manage to produce

empirically valid conclusions, despite their formal weaknesses”. His objective is wide-ranging: “[m]y

goal”, he states in the book’s preface, “is to present the schematisation as well as certain aspects to be

drawn … regarding the scientific status of archaeological constructions, the opposition […] between

traditional [and] new archaeology, the virtues and limitations of formal procedures […] in handling

archaeological data, the need for reform of publication patterns in archaeology, etc.” (Gardin 1980, p.

xi).

Archaeological constructs is a formidable theoretical construction in its own right. In the first chapter,

it introduces definitions of main concepts and terms, it outlines an iterative model linking the acquisi-

tion of archaeological objects with their annotation, the generation of propositions, etc., and offers

examples of a logicist analysis of the processes of cataloguing, classification, pattern recognition and

historical inference, which constitute, in Gardin’s scheme, the ‘lifecycle’ of archaeological knowledge

process. It then goes on to address methods of analysis suitable for the two polar kinds of archaeologi-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

14

cal publication distinguished, namely compilations, and explanations. In the next chapter, it provides a

pragmatic rationale for the differentiation between compilations and explanations, identifies shortcom-

ings in the current way archaeologists communicate explanations through narrative prose, and intro-

duces a set of principles for archaeological publication according to the distinct functions of the two

genres. In the final chapter, Gardin compares approaches to archaeological publication based on for-

mal reasoning and schematisation with alternative, narrative forms derived from traditional and sys-

tematic-modern archaeological practice, and situates the logicist program in a broader epistemological

context.

The notion of “construct” forms the main focus of Gardin’s logicist account of archaeological

knowledge. The two kinds of archaeological constructs he posits, compilations and explanations, are

an elaboration of his earlier distinction between tabulation and interpretation genres of document

analysis. Compilations – for example, catalogues of finds, or excavation reports – are concerned with

material remains of the past and their attributes, while explanations – for example, synthetic mono-

graphs and interpretative works – are concerned with ancient societies, their history and mode of life.

Gardin differentiates these kinds of constructs on account of their major function, and purpose. In his

conceptualisation, compilations are (better) made for information retrieval, and thus are destined not to

be read from end to end but to be skimmed, searched, and filtered according to the reader’s specific

interests, Explanations, on the other hand, are the only kind of archaeological constructs that he con-

siders to be truly important carriers of archaeological knowledge (Gardin 1980, p. 148).

Gardin recognises that there are are also intermediate kinds of archaeological constructs, such as ty-

pologies, which, sometimes, may go beyond the descriptive nature of compilations (e.g., just asserting

chronological order) to contribute to archaeological explanation. In fact, he notes that compilations

and explanations manifest themselves as two poles of archaeological publication, and in practice, ar-

chaeological works may combine elements of both. In the context of archaeological practice, when he

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

15

states that “the course taken for describing each class [of archaeological objects] necessarily rests up-

on more or less learned and explicit considerations regarding the present or potential utility of those

classes for explaining the variability of archaeological record”, Gardin accepts that explanatory con-

siderations enter even the descriptive work underlying the construction of compilations (Gardin 1980,

p. 20).

Gardin, however, is not merely proposing a theoretical scheme differentiating between kinds of ar-

chaeological publications. His objective is to mitigate what he sees as a failure of archaeological pub-

lication to attend to the imperatives of methodological rigour and parsimony, clarity, and even sound

reasoning, required of scientific research. He makes no bones of his grim view that much archaeologi-

cal scholarship of his times is “without either practical or rational worth”, attributing firmly and

squarely the reason for this apparent inadequacy to the ill-structured argumentation connecting field

observations with higher order interpretative syllogisms, encouraged by the dependence of archaeo-

logical publication on narrative prose. In this regard, Robert Whallon is surely correct in detecting, as

a crucial imperative of Gardin’s vision, the rise of a science of archaeology which would use logicist

analysis to “unmercifully reveal flaws and weaknesses, gradually forcing the field into a rigorousness

that presently it lacks” (Whallon 1985). His logicist alternative to this conundrum consists in the

“condensation” of archaeological scholarly prose through schematisation, taking initially the form of

an ordered path of logical inferences using modus ponens and operating on a lexicon of symbols rep-

resenting propositions.

Yet, what may be legitimately interpreted as Gardin’s normative call on how to best conduct and pub-

lish archaeological research through logical inference, either inductively by proceeding from initial

empirical observations and presuppositions to their final conclusions, or deductively by establishing

epistemic warrant for a hypothesis or theory on the basis of sufficient presuppositions, can also be read

as a retrospective method of inquiry, capable of producing an enriched understanding of the content of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

16

archaeological arguments through an analysis of existing archaeological texts and their re-expression

form natural to a formal language. In this light, starting from a set of descriptive statements or presup-

positions based on observations of the empirical domain of material objects (the “explanandum”), ar-

chaeological interpretation, originally in the form of natural language, can be re-expressed as a se-

quence of “rewrite rules” supporting, inductively, a succession of intermediate and, finally, higher

order terminal propositions, i.e. archaeological theories (the “explanans”). Conversely, it is possible to

construct, and understand, this schematisation in the opposite direction: to start from the hypothesis, or

theory, advocated by a particular archaeological publication, and show how this may be confirmed

deductively by means of rewrite operations connecting it, through intermediate consequent proposi-

tions, to facts in the original observations or presuppositions claimed by the author (Gardin 1980,

p.103, fig. 20; Gardin 1996, pp.213–214).

Gardin is therefore proposing a comprehensive rethinking of how one does archaeology: not merely

suggesting, as a methodologist, how one should perform archaeological research, but providing, as an

epistemologist, a whole new theory of how archaeological knowledge is produced. Recognising this

duality of Gardin’s approach to archaeological reasoning, Alison Wylie agrees that he “eschews top-

down, philosophically driven models […] to capture the range of operations by which archaeologists

proceed in even the most mundane practices of observation, description, compilation, and explanation.

Despite the formalism of these models, Gardin is compelled by the practice he considers to foreground

the selective, the interpretive, and even the normative dimensions of archaeological inquiry” (Wylie

2002, p. 18). In the same vein, it has been acknowledged that Gardin’s argument oscillates between an

evaluative, normative, mode and a complementary, but no less prominent, descriptive and representa-

tional mode (Stockinger 1990). On the other hand, Barceló goes so far as to note that “instead of a

normativist approach to archaeology, suggesting the best way of constructing the archaeology we

need, [Gardin] took an analytic point of view, looking for ways of deconstructing what archaeologists

believe they do” (Barceló 2009, p. 100).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

17

In fact, reinforcing the praxiological importance of his work, Gardin himself makes it clear that in Ar-

chaeological constructs he is “not proposing a new handbook on archaeological theory. […] My

goal”, he states, “is an analysis of the mental operations carried out in archaeological constructions of

all sorts, from the collecting of data to the writing of an article or book in published form” (Gardin

1980, p. xi). Applications at archaeological schematisation using the logicist approach (e.g., Gardin

and Lagrange 1975; Lagrange and Bonnet 1978) seem to support an interpretation of the logicist ap-

proach applied in practice as, mainly, the “analysis of mental operations carried out in [actual] archae-

ological constructions”. Such “condensations” of archaeological interpretation could encourage sound,

coherent and parsimonious argumentation, and could facilitate and speed up consultation of the sub-

stance of the core ideas proposed, liberating readers from the obfuscation of rhetorical artifice.

The purpose of logicist analysis for Gardin is thus to support a “practical epistemology” applicable not

only to archaeology but also to other disciplines (Gardin 1989, p. 15). While, in his own words, this

practical epistemology “is bound eventually to acquire a normative aspect”, it should be noted that this

is merely to the extent that “it makes us more aware of the empirical or social limits of our interpreta-

tions”. At the same time, Gardin insists that the logicist approach maintains a stance of “neutrality

with respect to the substance of theories or to the philosophy of the various schools in contemporary

archaeology […] a correlate of our will to reach first a better understanding of ‘what they are’ and

‘what they do’ in practical terms […] without a priori bias for or against any of them in particular”

(Gardin 1992, pp. 98–100). In fact, a central dimension of logicism as “practical epistemology” con-

cerns the establishment of a reliable and pragmatic descriptive method for a systematic analysis of

archaeological scholarship which, it may be argued, could also help reveal the limitations of nomo-

thetic, systems-theoretical, anti-traditionalist, and scientistic approaches.

Gardin admits, thus, to a principle of taking stock of the practice of archaeological research which he

then uses as a foundation in order to elaborate a critique, and propose alternatives. The process by

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

18

which he develops his argument is driven predominantly by attention to actual archaeological research

in action, rather than to positivist norm. As he emphatically states:

“If properly understood, […] the logicist perspective should not be regarded as another mani-

festation of scientism or neopositivism in the humanities. […] Far from being an apology for

science, the logicist program is an attempt to demonstrate its limitations in the humanities. Oth-

er schools seem to pursue the same goal (e.g. ‘radical’ or ‘post-modern’ archaeology); the dif-

ference, however, is that our motivations are not ideological (anti-science, counter-culture, etc.),

but strictly epistemological” (Gardin 1990, p. 26).

It is no accident, then, that the value and originality of Gardin’s explicit engagement with intellectual

processes in archaeological practice is acknowledged by as unlikely a pair of supporters as postpro-

cessualist scholars Michael Shanks and Chris Tilley. They are quick to add that Gardin is acting so for

merely instrumental reasons, “aiming at efficiently harmonizing means with ends; with the explosion

of archaeological information he wants a more efficient form of storage of basic data than site reports

and suchlike” (Shanks and Tilley 1992, p. 16), but such an exclusive representation of Gardin’s mo-

tives is unwarranted. While he does indeed argue for the usefulness of schematisation as a method of

providing more succinct representations of archaeological syllogisms, his concern is arguably broader,

and at the same time pragmatic and epistemological in nature. On the one hand, he notes the growing

proliferation of research publication that makes it almost impossible for scholars to study – rather than

consult – more than a small percentage of the works published in their field (Gardin 1996, pp. 216–

217); and, on the other, he is concerned from the outset of his logicist project with the lack of parsi-

mony and rigour in archaeological research, a fault encouraged, in his view, by the narrative genre of

research publication.

Gardin’s attention to the material vestiges of the past that contribute to archaeological inquiry, as well

as to the catalogues, perforated card indexes, and publications that constitute the material traces of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

19

archaeological epistemic work, reveals an understanding of archaeology as a kind of “objectual prac-

tice” which prefigures theorisations of the centrality of materiality in the production of scientific

knowledge by Science and Technology Studies scholarship (e.g., Knorr-Cetina 2001). And, the very

shift from archaeological description to archaeological reasoning, signalled by his engagement with

how archaeologists appraise and document archaeological data, analyze them and produce archaeo-

logical publications, may be seen as a pioneering, early example of a reflexive archaeology. His con-

tribution lies in the development of a framework for a reflexive consideration of the epistemic practice

of archaeology, albeit not based on ethnographic observation of archaeologists at work (Edgeworth

2006), but on a practically applicable method for the documentary analysis of the archaeological con-

structs – archives, databases, field reports, and publications - that form the record of archaeological

scholarship.

4 Archaeological publication and modes of knowledge

The primary pragmatic domain which Jean-Claude Gardin selects for the application of his logicist

analysis of archaeological reasoning is publication. He frames his approach precisely as “an analysis

of archaeological publications proposed […] under the name of logicism” (Gardin 1996). Archaeolog-

ical publication, in Gardin’s terms, does not just concern the mediated way in which archaeological

knowledge is communicated, but also the very structure and content of the outcomes of research, in

other words, the constitution of scholarly objects in archaeology. For this reason, his work in the 1990s

is increasingly inspired by a wish to produce new, useful ways of archaeological publication, contrib-

uting to what he considers a better, more explicit and sound exposition of archaeological reasoning,

and a clearer, more effective, foundation for scholarly communication. To achieve this result, he en-

visages, besides the aspect of archaeological publications as vehicles for narrative prose a complemen-

tary aspect of publication, based on a hypertext-based presentation of models which encapsulate a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

20

succession of inferences, operating on propositions linking material observations with archaeological

interpretations or hypotheses.

Gardin’s approach to archaeological publication is elaborated in his “Calcul et narrativité dans les pub-

lications archéologiques” (Gardin 1999), where, on Moscati’s invitation, he takes stock of the new

challenges introduced by the proliferation of information technology in the archaeology of the 1990s.

Among these, besides the known issues of terminological fluidity and resistance to standardisation in

archaeological documentation, he points at the “institutional deficit” in addressing the issues related

with the long term sustainability (“une certaine perénnité”) of archaeological research databases (Gar-

din 1999, p. 2). This problem has since become a major dimension of current considerations in the

field of archaeological information, framed more broadly as an archaeological “curation crisis” con-

nected with the proliferation of partially recorded, disorganized, and fragile archaeological collections

and documentation archives (Bawaya 2007; Bustard 2000; Childs 1995). Gardin’s concern for long

term preservation and open access to archaeological data is not new, as it even precedes his first exper-

iments introducing computers to archaeology. In fact, as early as the late 1950s, when he was experi-

menting with storing archaeological data in the form of peek-a-boo punched cards, he had advocated

that “[d]he decks of punch cards [storing descriptive information about archaeological objects] should

be as publicly available as any book and as widely circulated as significant archaeological mono-

graphs or general treatises” (Gardin 1958, p. 335). He can thus be recognised as a pioneering precur-

sor of contemporary developments in research data publication, sharing, citation and peer review

(Faniel and Zimmerman 2011; Lawrence et al. 2011; Smith 2011).

Yet Gardin is not merely advocating data publication. The logicist approach to archaeological publica-

tion, manifested in the Arkeotek project developed by ethnoarchaeology expert Valentine Roux (Gar-

din and Roux 2004; Roux 2004), goes beyond that to acknowledge the interdependence between data

constitution on the one hand, and scholarly argumentation on the other, and thus, implicitly, the futility

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

21

of attempting to publish one in separation from the other. Using hypertext, the proposed “Scientific

Constructs and Data” (SCD) format provides for the integration of argumentation structure of an ar-

chaeological publication with circumstantial and descriptive data, methodological principles adopted,

and results. The vision presented goes beyond the transcription of scholarly narrative into schematisa-

tions of arguments. Publications of archaeological research are framed not as passive diagrammatic

summaries, but as performative, interactive mechanisms (cf. Roux and Courty 2013a), allowing active

access to descriptions and interpretations of the archaeological record, conceived as a schematised

sequence of inferences between propositions organically connected with supporting archaeological

data. Readers (“consultants”) of a digitally-enabled logicist archaeological publication would be able

to navigate interactively through its argumentation structure, traversing the inference tree of the au-

thors’ arguments, and filtering, juxtaposing and analysing data, both qualitatively and quantitatively

(Gardin and Roux 2004, pp. 32–25). Further work in the Arkeotek project demonstrates that it is pos-

sible to model the logicist scheme of scholarly reasoning as a formal ontology (Aussenac-Gilles

2006). While experiments with digital archaeological publication integrating narrative presentation of

archaeological research with data, and the ability to manipulate them interactively, had appeared al-

ready since the first issue of the Internet Archaeology online journal (Heyworth et al. 1996; Dallas

1997; Richards 2006), Gardin’s vision extends, and deepens considerably, the articulation between

data and interpretation in archaeological publication.

In Archaeological constructs, Gardin contrasts his archaeology, based upon logicist premises and

practices of description and explanation, with the traditional narrative mode of archaeological writing,

connecting the former with “Science” and the latter with “Literature” in the spirit of C.P. Snow’s “two

cultures” (Snow 1959). The assimilation of scholarly archaeological prose with literature seems, as

first look, to undermine its epistemic claim. This reading is admittedly consistent with Gardin’s fre-

quent advocacy of a scientific archaeology based on logicist principles as he compares it, firstly, with

traditional archaeology, which he does not hesitate to relegate to the status of “practical lore” for lack

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

22

of rationality (an ability “to demonstrate a continuous and consistent chain of operations linking ob-

servation and theory”), and, secondly, with data-intensive modern archaeology which he calls “alche-

my” on account of its dependence on unwarranted heuristic or axiomatic rationalisation, and hence

lack of efficacy. But then he further qualifies his position, by suggesting that both an insightful yet

methodologically flawed traditional archaeology, and an ineffectual yet rigorous modern archaeology,

are essential parts of archaeological research, and necessary foundations for a logicist theorisation and

synthesis aiming at efficacy and rationality. And, noting the legitimacy of critiquing logical empiri-

cism as a potential Trojan horse of technocratic ideology, Gardin poses the following question, leading

to a surprising dénouement:

“[if] the logicist way of going about archaeological constructions [were to be extended] to the

human events and behaviour which we propose to ‘explain’ through the study of material re-

mains [… would we not] then be contributing, if only in proportion to the significance of our

field, both to an unhealthy organization of labour, reflecting the order of technocracy, and to an

abstract, cold vision of human history in which it is not sure that our descendants or ourselves

will take a lasting interest? […] I feel no embarrassment in confessing that the historical works

which I prize most are those which bear the mark of a strong personal relation between the au-

thor and his subject, a relation expressed and communicated through a kind of discourse which

has little to do […] with the logicist rhetoric” (Gardin 1980, pp. 178–179).

In a logicist fashion, it would be suitable to use symbols or expressions neutral to value judgment

(such as inevitably elicited by assimilating archaeological scholarship to literature) to represent Gar-

din’s judgment on these two different modes of knowledge. Quoting the following excerpt from Ar-

chaeological constructs, I substitute K1 for the mode of knowledge Gardin associates with “science”,

represented in archaeology by logicist schematisation, and K2 for the mode of knowledge he relates to

“literature”, represented by archaeological publication in the narrative genre:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

23

“I should end my excursion into the ways of K1 by a defense of K2; the two forms of mental ac-

tivity are for me alternative ways by which we give free rein to the same impulse, ignorant of

its origin or destination; but aware at least of the aberrations that inevitably occur when one

form of knowledge want to impose the condemnation of the other. I therefore do not consider

tolerance in this case as a matter of ethics, but rather, in an evolutionary perspective, as a matter

of survival” (modified quote, after Gardin 1980, p. 180).

Gardin’s unequivocal defense of the complementarity between two modes of knowledge, based on

humanistic narrative prose and logicist schematised reasoning respectively, calls for a re-examination

of his epistemology outside of the realm of positivism and scientism. Borrowing the notion of “rea-

sonableness” from argumentation theorist Stephen Toulmin (2001, p. 2), he seeks to provide founda-

tions for an archaeology whose propositions and theories, as supported by its publication practice,

stand the test of reason (Gardin 2002). The purpose of his logicist schematisation is not only “to gain a

deeper understanding of what our interpretive writings ‘are’, as symbolic constructs; we also wish to

evaluate what those constructs can ‘do’, in the universe of discourse under study” (Gardin 1989, p.

15). His approach acknowledges the interdependence between description and interpretation as theo-

ry-laden processes, and resonates with a critical view on the objectivism of the descriptive apparatus

of archaeology, and of the humanities and social sciences in general. In fact, his most enduring contri-

bution may be in his calling attention to the articulation between different genres of archaeological

publication and different modes of archaeological knowledge, the interdependence between data and

interpretation, and the possibilities for archaeological research and scholarly communication afforded

by formal representation and digital technology.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

24

5 Gardin and contemporary challenges in archaeological informatics

The last ten years saw a proliferation of archaeological information in digital form. Gardin’s early vi-

sion for openly accessible catalogues of archaeological finds, monuments and sites is gradually be-

coming a reality, by virtue of the emergence of data depositories such as the Archaeological Data Ser-

vice (ADS) at the University of York in the UK (Richards 2008) and the Digital Archaeological Rec-

ord (tDAR) in North America (Kintigh 2006; McManamon et al. 2010), common and interoperable

archaeological data standards such as MIDAS (Lee 1998) and CARARE Schema (Papatheodorou et al.

2011), and large-scale archaeological metadata aggregation by related projects such as CARARE –

Connecting Archaeology and Architecture for Europeana (Hansen and Fernie 2010), 3D ICONS –

World Heritage Sites for Europeana (D’Andrea et al. 2012) and LoCloud – Local Institutions in an

Europeana Cloud, based on the development and deployment of metadata repositories endowed with

affordances of semantic enhancement, digital preservation and digital curation (Gavrilis et al. 2013,

2014). The application of online, social and semantic technologies to the human and automated en-

richment and curation of archaeological information introduces additional possibilities and concerns

(Huggett 2012; Kansa et al. 2011).

The launch of ARIADNE – Advanced Research Infrastructures for Archaeological Dataset Network-

ing (Niccolucci and Richards 2013), the major European initiative in the field of archaeological digital

research infrastructures, is a notable step in the direction foreseen by Gardin half a century ago. ARI-

ADNE brings together expertise and assets of initiatives such as ADS, the Dutch archaeological ar-

chives (EDNA), the Fasti Online database of archaeological publications and reports, the archaeologi-

cal datasets of the Swedish National Data Service (SND), and the Arachne online database of the

German Archaeological Institute (DAI) and the Institute of Classical Archaeology in Cologne. It

promises to deliver harmonized access to archaeological archives and datasets across Europe, current-

ly in different languages, adopting a Babel of uncoordinated metadata schemas, descriptive standards

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

25

and often uncontrolled vocabularies, created and curated by different actors including researchers and

field archaeology projects, institutional archives and repositories, and national authorities and infra-

structures. It seeks to complement, integrate and provide access to a broad ecosystem of archaeologi-

cal archives and resources, accounting for the fragmentation and diversity in their documentation sys-

tems and semantics, as well as for their potential multidisciplinary use (Aspöck and Geser 2013). By

addressing the entire range of archaeological constructs, from excavation data and logbooks to 3D

models, archaeological gazeteers, field reports and publications, and by adopting an explicitly

knowledge-based, semantic approach to the construction and representation of registries, thesauri and

datasets, ARIADNE confronts the full gamut of intellectual and epistemic challenges foreseen by Gar-

din’s scholarship.

A consistent realisation from these developments, vindicating the value of Gardin’s early attention to

archaeological description, is the importance of the scope, expressiveness and affordances of metadata

schemas employed to represent the archaeological record, as conditions for the future reliability and

usefulness of archaeological information systems such as registries, finds databases, excavation ar-

chives, or digital libraries. As noted by archaeological computing experts Franco Niccolucci and Jul-

ian Richards, archaeological metadata should “be rich and specific enough to provide researchers with

information useful and relevant for specific research questions”, but also – in a spirit akin to Gardin’s

call for operationalization – amenable to automated recording, extraction and processing using stand-

ardized procedures and tools (Niccolucci and Richards 2013, p. 80). In fact, even the most elementary

descriptive identifications recorded in archaeological metadata are, as a rule, dependent on Gardin’s

framework of orientation, segmentation and differentiation governing the practice of archaeological

documentation (“compilations”), but also of the processes of archaeological curation and reasoning

that are in the centre of archaeological knowledge production (“explanations”), as he pertinently

demonstrated. But all too often, the information content of archaeological metadata aggregated in digi-

tal repositories remains partial, inconsistent, and lacking the necessary forethought that Gardin had

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

26

campaigned for as early as the 1950s. In this light, work on content and metadata standards is of es-

sential importance (Richards 2009). Such work should be driven by recognition of the ontological and

semantic complexity and heterogeneity of archaeological and cultural heritage objects (Dallas 1992,

1994), taking heed of Gardin’s caution regarding the impossibility of universal standards of descrip-

tion and classification. The dynamic nature of online archaeological information and systems, and

their emerging capabilities of ontological modeling, interoperability and semantic enrichment (Bind-

ing et al. 2008; Charles et al. 2013; Gavrilis et al. 2013), provide further substantiation for the im-

portance of archaeological description as advocated originally by Gardin. Besides, the potential of free

structure representation such as offered by Gardin’s Syntol documentary language (Gardin 1965b)

becomes especially relevant in the context of semantic linking based on Linked Open Data triples

(Hyvönen 2012; Isaksen 2011), as well as of open tagging (Boast and Biehl 2011; Kansa and Whitch-

er Kansa 2011) of archaeological information.

The introduction of digital information systems for scholarly research in recent years brought also to

the fore the interplay between knowledge practices and the epistemic objects these practices call upon,

create and curate. Studies of digital research infrastructures in the arts and humanities, and of scholarly

research activity making use of digital materials, tools and services, indicate that researchers engage

concurrently with both data and scholarly information objects – with compilations and explanations,

in Gardin’s terms – and, in doing so, they do not just need effective ways to discover, identify, filter,

order and consult such objects, but to also actively modify, link, annotate and enrich them (Benardou

et al. 2013). In contemporary digitally-enabled excavations such as Çatalhöyük (Tung 2013), re-

searchers engage in a range of activities encompassing the capture, description, annotation, classifica-

tion, knowledge enrichment and dissemination of documents such as computerized single-context

sheet documentation, digital diaries and audio memos, digital photography, reflexive video recording,

sketching and drawing, stratigraphic sequence matrices, 3D models, GIS representations, and hyper-

textual, diagrammatic and narrative interpretations of particular aspects of the archaeological record.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

27

Documentation and curation of archaeological data is as a rule enmeshed with interpretation (Dallas

2007a, 2007b), in line with Gardin’s position on the inseparability of data publication from the publi-

cation of archaeological argument. The increased recognition, in the ARIADNE project, of the im-

portance of synthetic research spanning across different datasets and scholarly objects, the promise of

integrating collection registries and datasets capable of capturing the complexity of archaeological

objects with semantic knowledge organization systems, and the call to build on the conceptualization

of provenance in the CRMdig extension of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (Crofts et al.

2010; Doerr and Theodoridou 2011) so as to account better for complex relations and entities (e.g.

time-space relations for historic changes, part-whole relations for complex structures) are all indica-

tions of growing sophistication of archaeological infrastructures to address the complexity of archaeo-

logical knowledge, in a way that resonates with Gardin’s vision.

Plans for large-scale digital scholarly research infrastructures (ACLS 2006; Anderson 2013; Blanke

and Kristel 2013; Constantopoulos et al. 2008; Niccolucci and Richards 2013) also underline the ur-

gency of developing a firmer understanding of what researchers actually do, and how, in particular,

information resources are called upon in the construction of knowledge in scholarly research practice

(Benardou et al. 2010a, 2012, 2013; Blanke and Hedges 2013; Speck and Links 2013). Gardin’s defi-

nition of the structure of scholarly research activity in the form of consecutive yet overlapping pro-

cesses of cataloguing, classification, pattern recognition and historical inference (Gardin 1980) finds

parallels in accounts of artefact analysis from museum and material culture studies (Eliott 1994;

Prown 1982), as well as in fine-grained models of humanities research process deriving from the

scholarly information behaviour and digital humanities fields (Benardou et al. 2010b; Ellis 1993; Me-

ho and Tibbo 2003; Palmer et al. 2009; Unsworth 2000). In the light of earlier research, logicist analy-

sis can be a particularly salient complement of observational and interview-based methods in the effort

to develop an understanding of scholarly research activity, as it allows the extrapolation of a reliable,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

28

evidence-based representation of the propositional structure of scholarly objects such as research pub-

lications, and, thus, indirectly, of the intellectual operations underlying archaeological argument.

A critical dimension in the specification of digital research infrastructures in archaeology concerns the

provision of fine-grained affordances for the discovery, retrieval and presentation of archaeological

argumentation, by means of digital tools and services designed to support the scholarly research pro-

cess. Gardin’s logicist analysis of archaeological constructs is a useful, even necessary, step in the di-

rection of enabling a succinct, unambiguous and useful “condensation” of archaeological argument

which is amenable to digital manipulation for information seeking, retrieval, and visualisation. The

June 2013 issue of the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory illustrates convincingly the

pragmatic usefulness of logicist enrichment of traditional archaeological research by presenting the

outcome of an Arkeotek workshop through a combination of the textual form of each paper with a

logicist diagram capturing its argumentation structure (Roux and Courty 2013b). A fuller integration

of archaeological publications with data, in the vein of the SCD format originally proposed by Gardin

and Roux (Roux 2004), based on the integration of domain ontologies with an inference engine oper-

ating on a rule base, and building on the promise of the Logicist Corpuses and DynamO projects

(Roux and Aussenac 2013), could yield additional benefits for researchers, allowing access, inference,

visualisation and annotation at the level of the particular propositions included in an archaeological

study, and its epistemic warrant. Notably, by closely coupling archaeological data with their role in

argumentation, the promise of Gardin’s theoretical contribution exposes the limitations and goes be-

yond the now increasingly popular idea of “data publication” (cf. Parsons and Fox 2013). Relevant

recent research, with which Gardin’s vision resonates, advances solutions for the publication of com-

pound information objects including data and scholarly text (Cheung et al. 2008; Gerber and Hunter

2009; Hunter 2006), for semantic annotation (Hunter 2009; Khare and Çelik 2006; Kiryakov et al.

2004), and for the use of argumentation schemes and ontologies in supporting scholarly research, cita-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

29

tion and publishing (de Waard et al. 2009; Pike and Gahegan 2007; Renear and Palmer 2009; Shotton

2009; Shum 2008).

In the spirit of Gardin’s vision, such an approach could support the simulation of archaeological rea-

soning which, rather than predominantly focusing into automated reasoning using artificial intelli-

gence (as advocated by Barceló 2007, 2009), could be amenable to providing support for the integrat-

ed retrieval, display, manipulation and collaborative curation of both descriptions and interpretations

of the archaeological record, in the context of an appropriately featured information system combining

data processing with argumentation support affordances (de Waard et al. 2009; Doerr et al. 2011; Li et

al. 2002; Shum 2008; Shum et al. 2006). Recognizing, with natural argumentation scholar Jean-Blaise

Grize, that scholarly reasoning is not composed by propositions standing in abstract, but by enuncia-

tions or statements that are part of discursive practices reflecting the point of view of their authors

(Grize 2000), it may be necessary to extend Gardin’s approach so that besides concepts and proposi-

tions entering scholarly reasoning, and related data and descriptions, it models adequately the subjects,

or actors, of archaeological reasoning, their disciplinary identity, motives and goals, and the conditions

and discursive context of the research activity (Dallas 2007b). A salient approach in addressing this

requirement would be to integrate logicist analysis with ontological models capable of representing

the cultural-historical activity context of archaeological curation and reasoning (Benardou et al.

2010b; Doerr et al. 2012; Gonzalez-Perez et al. 2012; Hug et al. 2012). Reaching beyond support for

the cycle of logico-deductive and empirical-inductive argumentation originally accounted for by logi-

cism, such a system could also allow the representation and manipulation of the all-too-common ar-

chaeological arguments based on abduction, i.e., on “inference to the best explanation” (Douven

2011; Harman 1965; Lipton 2000), in line with Grize’s critique to Gardin (Grize 2000) and in recogni-

tion of the centrality of abduction in archaeological research practice (Fogelin 2007; Hanen and Kel-

ley 1989).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

30

6 Conclusion

In this paper, I introduce a hitherto unappreciated aspect of Jean-Claude Gardin’s contribution to ar-

chaeological theory and method: namely, I show that his approach goes beyond a normative, positivist

view of archaeological research to recognise the contextual, theory-laden nature of archaeological data

constitution, the priority of focusing on actual archaeological interpretation practices, and the com-

plementarity between narrative and formal representations of archaeological reasoning. I seek the

origin of Gardin’s distinct approach to archaeological data, representation and knowledge in his early

engagement with semiotics and structural semantics, and point at his ambivalence vis-à-vis the prom-

ises of automated classification and machine reasoning in archaeology. To substantiate this reading, I

draw extensively from Gardin’s published work in English, starting from his early contribution to the

development of documentary languages and principles for archaeological description since the 1950s,

and ending with the practical application of his logicist approach to archaeological publication in the

2000s. My aim is to suggest neither a revision of established codifications of Gardin’s logicism as a

methodology nor an alternative intellectual genealogy of his thought, but to illustrate salient dimen-

sions of his theoretical contribution that may deserve further critical attention in the context of con-

temporary trends and developments.

The timeliness, and urgency, of Gardin’s seminal theoretical and methodological contribution is clear

in the context of emerging challenges and concerns for digitally-enabled archaeology. The pervasive,

interconnected world of archaeological databases he foresaw, the relevance on relying on formalized

vocabularies and propositional calculi for archaeological description, the historical contingency and

complexity of archaeological entities, the interdependence between data and argumentation in archae-

ology, are key attributes of the situation workers in the field of archaeological informatics face today.

His vision for a radically different model of archaeological publication, based on the schematization of

archaeological syllogisms and their reliance on the construction of the archaeological record through

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

31

recording and documentation, and served by semantic, interactive technologies of presentation, link-

ing and reasoning, does not merely resonate with current work on digital archaeological infrastruc-

tures. It also provides useful inspiration for future developments, towards a vision of semantically en-

riched information integration that does justice to the complexity and human agency underlying

knowledge construction in archaeology. His call towards the development of more effective methods

of capturing, communicating and analyzing the knowledge structures embedded in the actual products

of archaeological research – archaeological data, catalogues and research publications –is critically

relevant today, in the context of the archaeological curation crisis connected with the glut and frag-

mentation of information produced by disparate archaeological projects (Bawaya 2007; Bustard 2000;

Childs 1995), and the proliferation of orphaned, under-reported and under-analyzed archaeological

collections (Voss 2012). It is also hugely relevant in the service of a reflexive archaeology, as it pro-

vides an operational framework for the elucidation of the historical situatedness and context depend-

ency of archaeological knowledge. A more detailed elaboration of the implications of Gardin’s work

for current and future challenges in archaeological informatics remains a task for the future.

Gardin is recognised as a pioneer in developing theoretical principles for the constitution of archaeo-

logical databases, expert systems and knowledge bases. As the intellectual concerns and working

methods of archaeological informatics are integrated into standard archaeological research practice,

and as they inform further developments in the fields of digital heritage and digital humanities,

Gardin's key ideas, research initiatives and contributions remain “good to think”. His contribution to

the constitution of archaeological data, description and classification, the practices, representations and

modes of archaeological knowledge, and archaeological publication, is a seminal foundation for de-

bating and evaluating current developments. His foundational work on the constitution and formal

representation of archaeological constructs – ranging from description to interpretation – bears on

pragmatic considerations regarding contemporary application domains as diverse as cultural heritage

information integration, digital scholarly infrastructures, electronic publication in the humanities, and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

32

cultural heritage ontologies. By viewing his work in the context of a historical epistemology of late

20th century and contemporary archaeology, this paper purports to throw light on an aspect of the his-

tory of archaeological computing which, despite its fundamental significance, remains hitherto under-

estimated and only partially studied, and thus to draw useful conclusions for current research chal-

lenges in archaeology, and beyond.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Dr Seamus Ross and the anonymous reviewers for constructive criticism

and useful suggestions. This work has been partially supported by ARIADNE - Advanced Research

Infrastructure for Archaeological Dataset Networking in Europe, a project funded by the European

Commission Directorate General for Research and Innovation – SP4-Capacities e-Infrastructures Pro-

gramme (Grant Agreement No. 313193).

References

ACLS. (2006). Our cultural commonwealth: the report of the American Council of Learned Societies Commis-

sion on cyberinfrastructure for the humanities and social sciences. American Council of Learned Socie-

ties. http://www3.isrl.illinois.edu/~unsworth/sdl.html. Accessed 15 April 2009

Anderson, S. (2013). What are Research Infrastructures? International Journal of Humanities and Arts Compu-

ting, 7(1-2), 4–23. doi:10.3366/ijhac.2013.0078

Aspöck, E., & Geser, G. (2013). What is an archaeological research infrastructure and why do we need it? Aims

and challenges of ARIADNE. In 18th International Conference on Cultural Heritage and New Technol-

ogies. Presented at the Conference on Cultural Heritage and New Technologies, Vienna: Stadt

Archäologie Wien. http://www.chnt.at/wp-content/uploads/Aspoeck_Geser_2014.pdf. Accessed 23

November 2014

Aussenac-Gilles, N. (2006). Ontology or meta-model for retrieving scientific reasoning in documents: the

Arkeotek project. In Proc. of the Workshop on Exploring the limits of global models for integration and

use of historical and scientific information (pp. 24–25). http://www.cidoc-

crm.org/workshops/heraklion_october_2006/Aussenac.pdf. Accessed 14 September 2014

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

33

Barceló, J. A. (2007). Automatic archaeology. In S. Kenderdine & F. Cameron (Eds.), Theorizing digital cultural

heritage (pp. 437–56). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

http://prehistoria.uab.cat/Barcelo/publication/AutomaticArch.pdf. Accessed 17 August 2014

Barceló, J. A. (2009). The birth and historical development of computational intelligence applications in archae-

ology. Archeologia e Calcolatori, (20), 95–109. Accessed 31 March 2014

Bawaya, M. (2007). Archaeology: curation in crisis. Science, 317(5841), 1025–1026. Accessed 22 June 2014

Benardou, A., Constantopoulos, P., & Dallas, C. (2013). An approach to analyzing working practices of research

communities in the humanities. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 7(1-2), 105–

127. doi:10.3366/ijhac.2013.0084

Benardou, A., Constantopoulos, P., Dallas, C., & Gavrilis, D. (2010a). Understanding the information require-

ments of arts and humanities scholarship: implications for digital curation. International Journal of

Digital Curation, 5(1), 18–33.

Benardou, A., Constantopoulos, P., Dallas, C., & Gavrilis, D. (2010b). A conceptual model for scholarly research

activity. In J. Unsworth, H. Rosenbaum, & K. E. Fisher (Eds.), (pp. 26–32). Presented at the iConfer-

ence 2010: the fifth annual iConference, Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.

http://nora.lis.uiuc.edu/images/iConferences/2010papers_Allen-Ortiz.pdf

Benardou, A., Dallas, C., Angelis, S., & Constantopoulos, P. (2012). Defining user requirements for Holocaust

research infrastructures and services in the EHRI project. In Proceedings of the 2012 iConference (pp.

644–645). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/2132176.2132322

Bentley, R. A., Chippindale, C., & Maschner, H. D. G. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of archaeological theories.

Rowman & Littlefield.

Binding, C., May, K., & Tudhope, D. (2008). Semantic interoperability in archaeological datasets: data mapping

and extraction via the CIDOC CRM. Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries, 280–

290.

Bintliff, J. L. (Ed.). (2004). A companion to archaeology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Blanke, T., & Hedges, M. (2013). Scholarly primitives: Building institutional infrastructure for humanities e-

Science. Future Generation Computer Systems, 29(2), 654–661. doi:10.1016/j.future.2011.06.006

Blanke, T., & Kristel, C. (2013). Integrating Holocaust research. International Journal of Humanities and Arts

Computing, 7(1-2), 41–57. doi:10.3366/ijhac.2013.0080

Boast, R., & Biehl, P. F. (2011). Archaeological knowledge production and dissemination in the digital age. In E.

C. Kansa, S. W. Kansa, & E. Watrall (Eds.), Archaeology 2.0: new approaches to communication and

collaboration (pp. 119–155). Los Angeles, CA: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb.pdf#page=49. Accessed 14 January 2014

Borillo, M., & Gardin, J.-C. (1974). Banques de données archéologiques, Marseille 12-14 juin 1972. Paris: Édi-

tions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique.

Bustard, W. (2000). Archeological curation in the 21st century: or, making sure the roof doesn’t blow off. Cultur-

al Resource Management, 23(5), 10–15. Accessed 22 June 2014

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

34

Charles, V., Isaac, A., Fernie, K., Dallas, C., Gavrilis, D., & Angelis, S. (2013). Achieving interoperability be-

tween the CARARE Schema for monuments and sites and the Europeana Data Model. In International

Conference On Dublin Core And Metadata Applications (pp. 115–25). Lisbon, Portugal: DCMI.

http://dcevents.dublincore.org/IntConf/dc-2013/paper/viewPaper/171. Accessed 9 May 2014

Cheung, K., Hunter, J., Lashtabeg, A., & Drennan, J. (2008). SCOPE: a scientific compound object publishing

and editing system. International Journal of Digital Curation, 3(2), 4–18. doi:10.2218/ijdc.v3i2.55

Childs, S. T. (1995). The curation crisis. Federal Archaeology, 7(4), 11–15. Accessed 22 June 2014

Constantopoulos, P., Dallas, C., Doorn, P., Gavrilis, D., Groß, A., & Stylianou, G. (2008). Preparing DARIAH. In

Proceedings of the International Conference on Virtual Systems and MultiMedia (VSMM08). Present-

ed at the International Conference on Virtual Systems and MultiMedia (VSMM08), Nicosia, Cyprus.

http://www.dcu.gr/dcu/Documents/documents/preparing-dariah/en/attachment. Accessed 14 November

2013

Cowgill, G. L. (1967). Computer applications in archaeology. Computers and the Humanities, 2(1), 17–23.

doi:10.1007/BF02402460

Crofts, N., Doerr, M., Gill, T., Stead, S., & Stiff, M. (Eds.). (2010). Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Refer-

ence Model (version 5.0.2). ICOM/CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group.

http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/docs/cidoc_crm_version_5.0.1_Nov09.pdf

Dallas, C. (1992). Syntax and semantics of figurative art: a formal approach. In Archaeology and the information

age: a global perspective (pp. 230–275). London: Routledge.

Dallas, C. (1994). A new agenda for museum information systems. In S. Ross (Ed.), (pp. 251–264). Presented at

the Problems and Potentials of Electronic Information in Archaeology, London: British Library.

http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00007978/. Accessed 8 August 2008

Dallas, C. (1997). A step beyond reading in archaeological publication. Archives and Museum Informatics, 11(1),

55–64.

Dallas, C. (2007a). Archaeological knowledge, virtual exhibitions and the social construction of meaning. In P.

Moscati (Ed.), Virtual museums and archaeology: the contribution of the Italian National Research

Council (pp. 31–64). Roma: Insegna del Giglio. http://soi.cnr.it/archcalc/indice/Suppl_1/4_Dallas.pdf

Dallas, C. (2007b). An agency-oriented approach to digital curation theory and practice. In J. Trant & D. Bear-

man (Eds.), The International Cultural Heritage Informatics Meeting Proceedings. Presented at the

ICHIM07: International Cultural Heritage Informatics Meeting, Toronto: Archives & Museum Infor-

matics. http://www.archimuse.com/ichim07/papers/dallas/dallas.html. Accessed 5 August 2009

D’Andrea, A., Niccolucci, F., Bassett, S., & Fernie, K. (2012). 3D-ICONS: World Heritage sites for Europeana:

making complex 3D models available to everyone. In 2012 18th International Conference on Virtual

Systems and Multimedia (VSMM) (pp. 517–520). Presented at the 2012 18th International Conference

on Virtual Systems and Multimedia (VSMM). doi:10.1109/VSMM.2012.6365966

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

35

De Waard, A., Buckingham Shum, S., Carusi, A., Park, J., Samwald, M., & Sándor, Á. (2009). Hypotheses, evi-

dence and relationships: The HypER approach for representing scientific knowledge claims.

http://oro.open.ac.uk/18563/. Accessed 13 September 2014

Doerr, M., Kritsotaki, A., & Boutsika, K. (2011). Factual argumentation—a core model for assertions making.

Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH), 3(3), 8. Accessed 13 September 2014

Doerr, M., Kritsotaki, A., Christophides, V., & Kotzinos, D. (2012). Reference ontology for knowledge creation

processes. In A. Moen, A. I. Mørch, & S. Paavola (Eds.), Collaborative Knowledge Creation (pp. 31–

52). SensePublishers. http://link.springer.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/chapter/10.1007/978-94-

6209-004-0_3. Accessed 30 January 2014

Doerr, M., & Theodoridou, M. (2011). CRMdig: a generic digital provenance model for scientific observation. In

Proceedings of 3rd USENIX Workshop on the Theory and Practice of Provenance. Presented at the 3rd

USENIX Workshop on the Theory and Practice of Provenance, Heraklion, Crete: Institute of Computer

Science, Foundation of Research and Technology-Hellas (ICS-FORTH).

http://static.usenix.org/events/tapp11/tech/final_files/Doerr.pdf. Accessed 23 November 2014

Douven, I. (2011). Abduction. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2011.).

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/abduction/. Accessed 5 September 2014

Edgeworth, M. (2006). Ethnographies of archaeological practice: cultural encounters, material transformations.

Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Eliott, R. (1994). Towards a material culture methodology. In S. M. Pearce (Ed.), Interpreting objects and collec-

tions (pp. 109–123). London: Routledge.

Ellis, D. (1993). Modeling the information-seeking patterns of academic researchers: A grounded theory ap-

proach. The Library Quarterly, 63(4), 469–486.

Faniel, I. M., & Zimmerman, A. (2011). Beyond the data deluge: a research agenda for large-scale data sharing

and reuse. International Journal of Digital Curation, 6(1), 58–69. Accessed 13 September 2014

Fogelin, L. (2007). Inference to the best explanation: a common and effective form of archaeological reasoning.

American Antiquity, 603–625. Accessed 14 September 2014

Gallay, A. (1989). Logicism: a French view of archaeological theory founded in computational perspective. An-

tiquity, 63(238), 27–39. Accessed 31 March 2014

Gallay, A. (1998). Mathematics and logicism in archaeology: a historical approach. In S. Tabaczynski (Ed.), Dia-

logue with the data: the archaeology of complex societies and its context in the ’90s (Vol. III). Warsaw:

Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology. Committee of Pre-and Protohistoric Sciences. Polish Academy

of Sciences. http://www.archeo-gallay.ch/7_03Articles_pdf/AG1998.pdf. Accessed 31 March 2014

Gardin, J.-C. (1958). Four codes for the description of artifacts: an essay in archeological technique and theory.

American Anthropologist, NS60(2), 335–357. Accessed 31 October 2013

Gardin, J.-C. (1965a). On a possible interpretation of componential analysis in archeology. American Anthropol-

ogist, 67(5), 9–22. Accessed 12 August 2008

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

36

Gardin, J.-C. (1965b). Syntol. Graduate School of Library Service, Rutgers, the State University. Accessed 17

April 2014

Gardin, J.-C. (1967). Methods for the descriptive analysis of archaeological material. American Antiquity, 32(1),

13–30. Accessed 12 August 2008

Gardin, J.-C. (1971). Archaeology and computers: New perspectives. International Social Science Journal, 23(2),

189–203.

Gardin, J.-C. (1973). Document analysis and linguistic theory. Journal of Documentation, 29(2), 137–168.

doi:10.1108/eb026553

Gardin, J.-C. (1979). Une archéologie théorique. Paris: Hachette.

Gardin, J.-C. (1980). Archaeological constructs  : an aspect of theoretical archaeology. Cambridge [Eng.]  ;

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gardin, J.-C. (1989). Artificial intelligence and the future of semiotics: An archaeological perspective. Semiotica,

77(1-3), 5–26. Accessed 16 April 2014

Gardin, J.-C. (1990). Interpretation in the humanities: Some thoughts on the third way. In J. R. Ennals & J.-C.

Gardin (Eds.), Interpretation in the humanities  : perspectives from artificial intelligence. London &

Chicago, Ill.: British Library Board.

Gardin, J.-C. (1992). Semiotic trends in archaeology. In J.-C. Gardin & C. S. Peebles (Eds.), Representations in

archaeology (pp. 87–104). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Gardin, J.-C. (1996). Cognitive issues in archaeology. Archaeologia Polona, 34, 205–232. Accessed 16 April

2014

Gardin, J.-C. (1999, Access Date). Calcul et narrativité dans les publications archéologiques. Archeologia e

Calcolatori. http://soi.cnr.it/archcalc/indice/PDF10/10_05_Gardin.pdf

Gardin, J.-C. (2002, January 1). Les modèles logico-discursifs en archéologie. text.

http://www.progettocaere.rm.cnr.it/databasegestione/open_oai_page.asp?id=oai:www.progettocaere.rm.

cnr.it/databasegestione/A_C_oai_Archive.xml:326. Accessed 13 August 2008

Gardin, J.-C., & Lagrange, M. S. (1975). Essais d’analyse du discours archéologique. Paris: Centre national de la

recherche scientifique.

Gardin, J.-C., & Roux, V. (2004). The Arkeotek project  : a European network of knowledge bases in the ar-

chaeology of techniques. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 15, 25–40. Accessed 24 October 2008

Gavrilis, D., Dallas, C., & Angelis, S. (2013). A curation-oriented thematic aggregator. In T. Aalberg, C. Papa-

theodorou, M. Dobreva, G. Tsakonas, & C. J. Farrugia (Eds.), Research and Advanced Technology for

Digital Libraries (pp. 132–137). Presented at the Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL 2013),

Valetta, Malta: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-40501-

3_13. Accessed 2 December 2013

Gavrilis, D., Michail, H., Ioannides, M., Papatheodorou, C., & Dallas, C. (2014). Cultural heritage object

metadata enrichment in an integrated aggregation environment. Presented at the Euromed 2014: Inter-

national Conference on Cultural Heritage, Lemessos, Cyprus.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

37

Gerber, A., & Hunter, J. (2009). A Compound object authoring and publishing tool for literary scholars based on

the IFLA-FRBR. International Journal of Digital Curation, 4(2), 28–42. doi:10.2218/ijdc.v4i2.91

Gonzalez-Perez, C., Martín-Rodilla, P., Parcero-Oubiña, C., Fábrega-Álvarez, P., & Güimil-Fariña, A. (2012).

Extending an abstract reference model for transdisciplinary work in cultural heritage. In J. M. Dodero,

M. Palomo-Duarte, & P. Karampiperis (Eds.), Metadata and Semantics Research (pp. 190–201).

Springer Berlin Heidelberg. http://link.springer.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/chapter/10.1007/978-

3-642-35233-1_20. Accessed 19 July 2013

Greene, K., & Moore, T. (2010). Archaeology: an introduction. Routledge.

Grize, J.-B. (2000). Les discours du savoir: Pour un dialogue avec Jean-Claude Gardin. Revue européenne des

sciences sociales, 38(119), 131–137. Accessed 6 September 2014

Guermandi, M. P. (1999). Dalle basi dati alla rete: l’evoluzione del trattamento dei dati archeologici. Archeologia

e calcolatori, (10), 89–100. Accessed 16 April 2014

Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M. (1990). Les bases de données en archéologie: conception et mise en oeuvre. Pari: Centre

national de la recherche scientifique.

Hanen, M., & Kelley, J. (1989). Inference to the best explanation in archaeology. In V. Pinsky & A. Wylie (Eds.),

Critical traditions in contemporary archaeology, (pp. 14–17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hansen, H. J., & Fernie, K. (2010). CARARE: connecting archaeology and architecture in Europeana. In Digital

Heritage (pp. 450–462). Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-16873-4_36. Ac-

cessed 1 April 2013

Harman, G. H. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. The Philosophical Review, 88–95. Accessed 7 Sep-

tember 2014

Heyworth, M., Ross, S., & Richards, J. (1996). Internet Archaeology: an electronic journal for archaeology. Ana-

lecta Praehistorica Leidensia, 28(Interfacing the Past. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods

in Archaeology, CAA95), 517–523.

Hodder, I. (Ed.). (1987). The archaeology of contextual meanings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hodder, I. (2012). Archaeological theory today. London: Polity.

Hodder, I., & Hutson, S. (2003). Reading the past: current approaches to interpretation in archaeology. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press. Accessed 30 January 2014

Hug, C., Salinesi, C., Deneckere, R., & Lamasse, S. (2012). Process modeling for humanities: tracing and ana-

lyzing scientific processes. In P. Verhagen (Ed.), Revive the Past  : Proceedings of the 39th Annual

Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), Beijing, Chi-

na, 12-16 April 2011 (pp. 245–255). Beijing, Chine: Amsterdam University Press. http://hal-

paris1.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00662699. Accessed 8 February 2013

Huggett, J. (2012). Lost in information? Ways of knowing and modes of representation in e-archaeology. World

Archaeology, 44(4), 538–552. doi:10.1080/00438243.2012.736274

Huggett, J. (2013). Disciplinary issues: challenging the research and practice of computer applications in archae-

ology. In G. Earl, T. Sly, A. Chrysanthi, P. Murrieta-Flores, C. Papadopoulos, I. Romanowska, & D.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

38

Wheatley (Eds.), Archaeology in the digital era: papers from the 40th Annual Conference of Computer

Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), Southampton, 26-29 March 2012 (pp.

13–24). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Accessed 27 June 2014

Hunter, J. (2006). Scientific publication packages: a selective approach to the communication and archival of

scientific output. The International Journal of Digital Curation, 1(1), 33–52. Accessed 14 March 2013

Hunter, J. (2009). Collaborative semantic tagging and annotation systems. Annual Review of Information Sci-

ence and Technology, 43(1), 1–84. doi:10.1002/aris.2009.1440430111

Hyvönen, E. (2012). Publishing and using cultural heritage linked data on the Semantic Web. Palo Alto,CA:

Morgan & Claypool. doi:10.2200/S00452ED1V01Y201210WBE003. Accessed 19 January 2014

Isaksen, L. (2011). Archaeology and the semantic web. University of Southampton. Retrieved from

http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/206421

Jones, A. (2001). Archaeological theory and scientific practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kansa, E. C., Kansa, S. W., & Watrall, E. (Eds.). (2011). Archaeology 2.0: new approaches to communication

and collaboration. Los Angeles, CA: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.

http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb#page-82. Accessed 14 January 2014

Kansa, E. C., & Whitcher Kansa, S. (2011). Toward a do-it-yourself cyberinfrastructure: open data, incentives,

and reducing costs and complexities of data sharing. In E. C. Kansa, S. W. Kansa, & E. Watrall (Eds.),

Archaeology 2.0: new approaches to communication and collaboration (pp. 57–94). Los Angeles, CA:

Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb.pdf#page=49. Accessed

14 January 2014

Khare, R., & Çelik, T. (2006). Microformats: a pragmatic path to the semantic web. In Proceedings of the 15th

international conference on World Wide Web (p. 866).

Kintigh, K. (2006). The promise and challenge of archaeological data integration. American Antiquity, 71(3),

567–578. doi:10.2307/40035365

Kiryakov, A., Popov, B., Terziev, I., Manov, D., & Ognyanoff, D. (2004). Semantic annotation, indexing, and

retrieval. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 2(1), 49–79. Accessed

14 September 2014

Knorr-Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual practice. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, & E. Von Savigny (Eds.), The

practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 184–197). London: Routledge.

Lagrange, M. S., & Bonnet, C. (1978). Les chemins de la “Mémoria”  : nouvel essai d’analyse du discours ar-

chéologique. Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique.

Lakoff, G. (1970). Linguistics and natural logic. Synthese, 22, 151–271. Accessed 6 September 2014

Lawrence, B., Jones, C., Matthews, B., Pepler, S., & Callaghan, S. (2011). Citation and peer review of data: mov-

ing towards formal data publication. International Journal of Digital Curation, 6(2), 4–37.

doi:10.2218/ijdc.v6i2.205

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

39

Lee, E. (1998). MIDAS: a manual and data standard for monument inventories. Swindon, UK: RCHME, Data

Standards Unit, National Monuments Record Centre. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/ serv-

er/show/nav.8331

Li, G., Uren, V., Motta, E., Shum, S. B., & Domingue, J. (2002). Claimaker: weaving a semantic web of research

papers. In I. Horrocks & J. Hendler (Eds.), The Semantic Web — ISWC 2002 (pp. 436–441). Springer

Berlin Heidelberg. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-48005-6_37. Accessed 13 Septem-

ber 2014

Lipton, P. (2000). Inference to the best explanation. In W. H. Newton-Smith (Ed.), A companion to the philoso-

phy of science (pp. 184–193). Oxford: Blackwell. http://homepages.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/Lipton.pdf.

Accessed 7 September 2014

McManamon, F. P., Kintigh, K. W., & Brin, A. (2010). Digital Antiquity and the Digital Archaeological Record

(tDAR): broadening access and ensuring long-term preservation for digital archaeological data. CSA

Newsletter, 23(2). http://csanet.org/newsletter/fall10/nlf1002.html. Accessed 22 June 2014

Meho, L. I., & Tibbo, H. R. (2003). Modeling the information-seeking behavior of social scientists: Ellis’study

revisited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 570–587.

Moscati, P. (2013). Jean-Claude Gardin (Parigi 1925-2013). Dalla meccanografia all’informatica archeologica.

Archeologia e Calcolatori, 24, 7–24. Accessed 16 April 2014

Niccolucci, F., & Richards, J. D. (2013). ARIADNE: Advanced Research Infrastructures for Archaeological Da-

taset Networking in Europe. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 7(1-2), 70–88.

doi:10.3366/ijhac.2013.0082

Orlandi, T. (2004). Archeologia teorica e informatica archeologica. Un rapporto difficile. Archeologia e calcola-

tori, (XV), 41–50. Accessed 16 April 2014

Palmer, C. L., Teffeau, L. C., & Pirmann, C. M. (2009). Scholarly information practices in the online environ-

ment. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC. http://0-

www.oclc.org.millennium.mohave.edu/programs/publications/reports/2009-02.pdf

Panofsky, E. (1962). Studies in iconology. Harper & Row.

Papatheodorou, C., Carlisle, P., Ertmann-Christiansen, C., & Fernie, K. (2011). The CARARE metadata schema,

v. 1.1. CARARE project.

http://carare.eu/est/content/download/4277/35150/file/CARARE%20metadata%20schema%20outline

%20v1.1.pdf. Accessed 1 April 2013

Parsons, M. A., & Fox, P. A. (2013). Is data publication the right metaphor? Data Science Journal, 12, WDS32–

WDS46. Accessed 10 August 2014

Pike, W., & Gahegan, M. (2007). Beyond ontologies: Toward situated representations of scientific knowledge.

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(7), 674–688. Accessed 9 August 2014

Preucel, R. W., & Mrozowski, S. A. (Eds.). (2010). Contemporary archaeology in theory: the new pragmatism.

John Wiley & Sons.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

40

Prown, J. D. (1982). Mind in matter: an introduction to material culture theory and method. Winterthur Portfolio,

17(1), 1–19. Accessed 29 December 2007

Renear, A. H., & Palmer, C. L. (2009). Strategic reading, ontologies, and the future of scientific publishing. Sci-

ence, 325(5942), 828–832. Accessed 9 August 2014

Renfrew, C., & Bahn, P. (2012). Archaeology: theories, methods, and practice. Thames & Hudson.

Richards, J. D. (2002). Digital preservation and access. European Journal of Archaeology, 5(3), 343–366.

doi:10.1177/146195702761692347

Richards, J. D. (2006). Archaeology, e-publication and the Semantic Web. Antiquity, 80(310), 970–979.

Richards, J. D. (2008). Managing digital preservation and access: The Archaeology Data Service. Managing Ar-

chaeological Resources: Global context, national programs, local actions, 58, 173. Accessed 30 De-

cember 2013

Richards, J. D. (2009). From anarchy to good practice: the evolution of standards in archaeological computing.

Archeologia e Calcolatori, 27–35. Accessed 17 August 2014

Roux, V. (2004). Faciliter la consultation de textes scientifiques. Nouvelles pratiques éditoriales... Hermès, (39),

151–159.

Roux, V. & Aussenac, N. (2013). Knowledge basis and query tools for a better cumulativity in the field of ar-

chaeology: the Arkeotek Project. In F. Contreras, M. Farjas and F.J. Melero (Eds.), CAA 2010: Fusion

of Cultures. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative

Methods in Archaeology, Granada, Spain, April 2010. British Archaeological Reports S2494 ((pp. 267-

272). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Roux, V., & Courty, M.-A. (2013a). Introduction to discontinuities and continuities: Theories, methods and prox-

ies for a historical and sociological approach to evolution of past societies. Journal of Archaeological

Method and Theory, 20(2), 187–193. Accessed 31 March 2014

Roux, V., & Courty, M.-A. (Eds.). (2013b). Discontinuities and continuities: theories, methods and proxies for a

historical and sociological approach to evolution of past societies. Journal of Archaeological Method

and Theory, 20(2), 187–363. Accessed 13 September 2014

Shanks, M., & Tilley, C. Y. (1992). Re-constructing archaeology: theory and practice. London  ; New York:

Routledge. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0648/93132570-d.html

Shepard, A. O. (1948). The symmetry of abstract design with special reference to ceramic decoration. Carnegie

Institution of Washington.

Shotton, D. (2009). Semantic publishing: the coming revolution in scientific journal publishing. Learned Publish-

ing, 22, 85–94. doi:10.1087/2009202

Shum, S. J. B. (2008). Cohere: towards Web 2.0 argumentation. In Proceedings: COMMA’08: 2nd International

Conference on Computational Models of Argument (pp. 97–108). Toulouse, France: IOS Press. Ac-

cessed 13 September 2014

Shum, S. J. B., Selvin, A. M., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Haley, C. B., & Nuseibeh, B. (2006). Hypermedia sup-

port for argumentation-based rationale. In A. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, & B. Paech (Eds.), Ra-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

41

tionale management in software engineering (pp. 111–132). Berlin: Springer.

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-540-30998-7_5.pdf. Accessed 14 September 2014

Smith, M. (2011). Communicating with data: new roles for scientists, publishers and librarians. Learned Publish-

ing, 24(3), 203–205. Accessed 13 September 2014

Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures (Vol. 130). Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/130/3373/419.citation. Accessed 17 November 2014

Spaulding, A. C. (1953). Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types. American Antiquity, 18, 305–

313. Accessed 30 September 2014

Spaulding, A. C. (1960). Statistical description and comparison of artifact assemblages. In R. F. Heizer & S. F.

Cook (Eds.), The application of quantitative methods in archaeology (pp. 60–83). Chicago, Ill.: Quad-

rangle Books.

Speck, R., & Links, P. (2013). The missing voice: archivists and infrastructures for humanities research. Interna-

tional Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 7(1-2), 128–146. doi:10.3366/ijhac.2013.0085

Stockinger, P. (1990). On Gardin’s logicist analysis. In T. Buksiński (Ed.), Interpretation in the humanities (pp.

284–304). Poznan, Poland: Uniwersytet Im. Adama Mickiewicza W Poznaniu.

Toulmin, S. E. (2001). Return to reason. Harvard University Press. Accessed 12 September 2014

Trigger, B. G. (2006). A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tung, B. (Ed.). (2013). Çatalhöyük 2013 archive report. Çatalhöyük Research Project.

http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2013.pdf. Accessed 15 January 2014

Unsworth, J. (2000). Scholarly Primitives: What methods do humanities researchers have in common, and how

might our tools reflect this? Presented at the Humanities Computing: formal methods, experimental

practice symposium, King’s College, London. http://www3.isrl.illinois.edu/~unsworth/Kings.5-

00/primitives.html. Accessed 4 August 2009

Voss, B. L. (2012). Curation as research. A case study in orphaned and underreported archaeological collections.

Archaeological Dialogues, 19(2), 145–169.

Washburn, D. K. (1977). A symmetry analysis of upper Gila area ceramic design. Papers of the Peabody Muse-

um of Archaeology and Ethnology Cambridge, Mass., 68, 1–190. Accessed 6 September 2014

Whallon, R. (1985). Review of: Archaeological constructs: an aspect of theoretical archaeology by Jean-Claude

Gardin. American Antiquity, 50(3), 693–698. doi:10.2307/280332

Wylie, A. (2002). Thinking from things: essays in the philosophy of archaeology. Los Angeles, Calif.: University

of California Press. Accessed 24 April 2014

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65