Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Key Takeaways
Traces Versus Data
Implications and Conclusions
References
FAQs
All Topics
Philosophy
Philosophy of Science

An Archaeology of Traces

Profile image of Bruce RoutledgeBruce Routledge

2023, Cambridge Archaeological Journal

https://doi.org/10.1017/S095977432300029X
visibility

…

description

14 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Archaeology is centrally concerned with the tension between material remains in the present and a reconstructed past. This tension is captured by the concept of a trace, namely a contemporary phenomenon that references the past through some sort of epistemic intervention. Traces are deceptively complex in terms of both their epistemology and their ontology and hence worthy of detailed exploration. In particular, archaeological traces not only concern the past per se but also possess a latent quality of as yet unrealized signification. This gives archaeological traces a future orientation that is rarely considered in discussions of archaeological epistemology.

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. Archaeological traces embody the tension between material remains and reconstructed pasts, necessitating nuanced epistemic interventions.
  2. Future-oriented potential of traces influences preservation and curation practices within archaeological discourse.
  3. Defining traces requires distinguishing them from data, with traces being evidence of past states.
  4. The concept of traces facilitates understanding archaeological practice as a knowledge-forming endeavor.
  5. Recent approaches like symmetrical archaeology and new materialism shift focus from past inference to material ontology in archaeology.

Related papers

Introduction: The Materiality of Traces and Legacies
Kimberly C Kasper, C. Broughton Anderson

This Special Issue presents issues in contemporary archaeological theory and practice as influenced by the work of H. Martin Wobst. Wobst came to study in the U.S. nearly 50 years ago and has contributed to many changes in the theory and practice of archaeology since then. Though the papers cover a wide range of topics they share common interests in seeing materiality as constitutive of culture, archaeologists as participants in the present as well as observers of the past, and an interest in transcending traditional definitions of archaeological research. ________________________________________________________________

View PDFchevron_right
Historical archaeology: why the past matters
Barbara Little

Choice Reviews Online, 2007

View PDFchevron_right
Experiencing the Past: On the Character of Archaeology
Michael Shanks

Routledge, 1992

All things archaeological - from archaeological method, the connections between archaeology and modernity, through a process-relational paradigm, to the heritage industry and archaeology as a mode of cultural production, with an outline of archaeology as craft. Overall it is an exploration of the archaeological imagination, as I called it when I was at University Wales Lampeter, with archaeology a relationship between the remains of the past and present interests. I wrote this book while still making my way into archaeology - it brought together what I had been saying with Chris Tilley in the 1980s with a personal vision of what the archaeogical past means to many people now. The book takes risks with experimental writing and imaging, including eidetics and collage. Twenty five years after publication it is pleasing to see that much of what I was writing about then has come to figure significantly in archaeological thinking: — the book is a kind of analysis of the discourse of archaeology and exemplifies an interest in how the past may be mediated - written and visualized - imagery, simulation, narrative — the book argues for an extension of archaeological interest to include the contemporary world - archaeologies of the contemporary past, with a particular focus upon the convergence of archaeology and contemporary art — in this the book deals with archaeology's cultural associations with modernity - horror fiction to gardening, forensics to fakery — the cultural politics of archaeology are revealed through an ethnography of archaeology, archaeologists and those with archaeological interests the book argues for a new conception of heritage - not academic disdain for popular interest in the remains of the past, but a celebration of certain kinds of actuality that embody creative relationships with the past — rather than have archaeology only engaged in explaining and interpreting the past, the book argues for a post-interpretive turn to take us beyond epistemology into work upon the materiality of the past - ontologies of relationship between past and present — this means thinking about the materiality of cultural experience and its embodiment - a focus on experiences past and present in a process-relational paradigm related to a reading of Nietzsche, Bergson, Adorno's negative dialectics, and Deleuze's nomadics.

View PDFchevron_right
The history of archaeology
James McVicar

1984

View PDFchevron_right
Baird, J. A. and Lesley McFadyen, (2014), “Towards an Archaeology of Archaeological Archives” Archaeological Review from Cambridge 29.2 (The Archive Issue), 14-32.
J.A. Baird
View PDFchevron_right
The discipline of archaeology
Kristian Kristiansen

Sub chapters in 'The discipline of archaeology': What is archaeology?, What archaeologists do and where they work, Avenues of discovery: how archaeological finds are recovered, Archaeological contexts and categories: how finds are classified, Roads to knowlöedge: how archaeological documentation is stored and retrieved, The changing nature of archaeology - between history and anthropology, the humanities and science, Approaches to interpretation,The politics and ethics of archaeology: between ideology, heritage and academia, The future of archaeology. Appendix: definitions of archaeology.

View PDFchevron_right
Contemporary issues of historical archaeology
Pedro Paulo A . Funari
View PDFchevron_right
On the object of archaeology
Assaf Nativ

Archaeological Dialogues, 2018

The paper ponders on the object of archaeology, called here 'the archaeological.' It argues that the existence of such an object is a necessary premise of the field and that ultimately it is on this object that the validity of all claims and arguments must rest. The paper suggests that the archaeological be conceived as a cultural phenomenon that consists in being disengaged from the social, an understanding that positions archaeology as a counterpart to the social sciences and the humanities, rather than a member in the same milieu. The first part of the paper focuses on the position of the archaeological with reference to the concepts of 'Nature' and 'Culture' that eventually leads us to a confrontation of archaeological statics with the dynamics of the world. Efforts to justify and understand archaeological statics, consequently, leads to the recognition of a constitutive distinction between buried and non-buried conditions, upon which the differentiation of the archaeological from the social is established.

View PDFchevron_right
The future of archaeological theory
Julian Thomas

Antiquity, 2015

In this latest contribution to our ‘Archaeological Futures’ series, Julian Thomas reflects on the current state of Western archaeological theory and how it is probably going to develop over the next few years. Archaeological theory has not ossified in the period since the processual/post-processual exchanges. The closer integration of archaeological thought with philosophical debate in the human sciences has gradually given rise to a theoretical landscape that would have been unrecognisable 30 years ago, wherein ‘new materialisms’ figure significantly.

View PDFchevron_right
No compensation needed: on archaeology and the archaeological
Assaf Nativ

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2017

The archaeological is regularly perceived in negative terms as lacking and deficient. It is fragmented, static and crude, a residue of past living societies. Accordingly, much of archaeologists' efforts are directed towards the amendment of these flaws. The present paper, however, argues that these so-called deficiencies are in fact constitutive absences. Whatever the archaeological lacks, it lacks by definition. It thus follows that working to render the archaeological " complete " is in fact an effort to undo it, to convert it into something else. For the sake of discovering the past, archaeological practice is a sustained effort to rid itself of the very phenomenon that defines it, consequently setting in motion self-perpetuating circularity predicated on deficiency and compensation. The reason for this, it is suggested, is the otherness of the archaeological, being at one and the same time a cultural phenomenon and a fossil record, a social construct and a geological deposit. This condition is so baffling that it is approached by transforming it into something familiar. The paper argues that understanding the archaeological should be archaeology's first priority. Insofar as it is also the study of the past, this should be predicated on the understanding of the archaeological present.

View PDFchevron_right

References (72)

  1. Binford, L., 1980. Willow smoke and dogs' tails: hunter- gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45(1), 4-20.
  2. Binford, L., 1983. Working at Archaeology. New York (NY): Academic Press.
  3. Bischoff I., S. Schröder & B. Misof, 2009. Differentiation and range expansion of North American squash bee, Peponapis pruinosa (Apidae: Apiformes) populations assessed by geometric wing morphometry. Annals of the Entomology Society of America 102, 60-69.
  4. Bloch, M., 1953. The Historian's Craft. New York (NY): Alfred A. Knopf.
  5. Boozer, A., 2015. Tracing everyday life at Trimithis (Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt). Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 26, 122-38.
  6. Changeux, J.-P. & P. Ricoeur, 2000. What Makes us Think? Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
  7. Crossland, Z., 2021. 'Contextual archeology' revisited: reflections on archaeology, assemblages and semiot- ics, in Far from Equilibrium: An archaeology of energy, life and humanity, eds M. Boyd & R. Doonan. Oxford: Oxbow, 85-102.
  8. Crossland, Z. & A. Bauer, 2017. Im/materialities: things and signs. Semiotic Review 4. https://semioticreview.com/ ojs/index.php/sr/article/view/9
  9. Currie, A., 2018. Rock, Bone and Ruin: An optimist's guide to the historical sciences. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
  10. Currie, A., 2019. Epistemic optimism, speculation, and the historical sciences. Philosophy, Theory and Practice in Biology 11, 7.
  11. Currie, A., 2021. Stepping forwards by looking back: underdetermination, epistemic scarcity and legacy data. Perspectives on Science 29(1), 104-32.
  12. Daszkiewicz, M. & L. Maritan, 2016. Experimental firing and re-firing, in The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Ceramic Analysis, ed. A. Hunt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 487-508.
  13. Derrida, J., 1997. Of Grammatology. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University Press.
  14. Dwyer, E., 2010. Pompeii's Living Statues: Ancient Roman lives stolen from death. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Press.
  15. Edgeworth, M., 2003. Acts of Discovery: An ethnography of archaeological practice. (BAR International Series S1131.) Oxford: Archaeopress.
  16. Edgeworth, M., 2012. Follow the cut, follow the rhythm, follow the material, Norwegian Archaeological Review 45(1), 76-92.
  17. Gero, J., 1985. Socio-politics and the woman-at-home ideol- ogy. American Antiquity 50(2), 342-50.
  18. Ginzburg, C., 1989. Clues: roots of an evidential paradigm, in Myths, Emblems, Clues, by C. Ginzburg. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University Press, 96-125.
  19. Hacıgüzeller, P., J. Stuart Taylor & S. Perry, 2021. On the emerging supremacy of structured digital data in archaeology: a preliminary assessment of informa- tion, knowledge and wisdom left behind. Open Archaeology 7, 1709-30.
  20. Harrison, R., C. DeSilvey, C. Holtorf, et al., 2020. Heritage Futures: Comparative approaches to natural and cultural heritage practices. London: UCL Press.
  21. Hawkes, C., 1954. Archaeological theory and method: some suggestions from the Old World. American Anthropologist 56(2), 155-68.
  22. Hicks, D., 2016a. The temporality of the landscape revis- ited. Norwegian Archaeological Review 49(1), 5-22.
  23. Hicks, D., 2016b. Reply to comments: Meshwork fatigue. Norwegian Archaeological Review 49(1), 33-9.
  24. Hodder, I., 1999. The Archaeological Process. Oxford: Blackwell.
  25. Hodder, I. & C. Cessford, 2004. Daily practice and social memory at Çatalhöyük. American Antiquity 69(1), 17-40.
  26. Hodder, I. & S. Hutson, 2003. Reading the Past: Current approaches to interpretation in archaeology (3rd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Huggett, J., 2015. Digital haystacks: Open Data and the transformation of archaeological knowledge, in Open Source Archaeology: Ethics and practice, eds A. Wilson & B. Edwards. Berlin: DeGruyter Open, 6-29.
  28. Huggett, J., 2020. Is big digital data different? Towards a new archaeological paradigm. Journal of Field Archaeology 45 (sup1), S8-S17. DOI: 10.1080/00934690.2020.1713281
  29. Huggett, J., 2022. Data legacies, epistemic anxieties, and digital imaginaries in archaeology. Digital 2, 267-95.
  30. Hurd P., E. Linsley & T. Whitaker, 1971. Squash and gourd bees (Peponapis, Xenoglossa) and the origin of the cul- tivated Cucurbita. Evolution 25, 218-34.
  31. Hutson, S., 2010. Dwelling, Identity and the Maya: Relational archaeology at Chunchucmil. Lanham (MD): AltaMira.
  32. Ingold, T., 1993. The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology 25(2), 152-74.
  33. Ingold, T., 2016. Archaeology with its back to the world, Norwegian Archaeological Review 49(1), 30-32.
  34. Joyce, R., 2006. The monumental and the trace: archaeo- logical conservation and the materiality of the past, in Of the Past, For the Future: Integrating archaeology and conservation, eds N. Agnew & J. Bridglands. Los Angeles (CA): Getty Conservation Institute, 13-18.
  35. Joyce, R., 2015. Transforming archaeology, transforming materiality. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 26, 181-91.
  36. Kosso, P., 2001. Knowing the Past: Philosophical issues of his- tory and archaeology. New York (NY): Humanity Books.
  37. Krämer, S., 2007. Was also ist eine Spur? Und worin besteht ihre epistemologische Rolle? Ein Bestandsaufnahme, in Spur: Spurenlesen als Orientierungstechnik und Wissenskunst, eds S. Krämer, W. Kogge & G. Grube. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag, 11-33.
  38. Latour, B., 1999. Circulating reference: sampling the soil in the Amazon forest, in Pandora's Hope: Essays on the reality of science studies, by B. Latour. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 24-79.
  39. Lazer, E., K. Welch, D. Vu, et al., 2021. Inside the casts of the Pompeian victims: results from the first season of the Pompeii Cast Project in 2015. Papers of the British School at Rome 89, 101-36.
  40. Leonelli, S., 2016. Data-Centric Biology: A philosophical study. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.
  41. Leonelli, S. & N. Tempini (eds), 2020. Data Journeys in the Sciences. Cham: Springer.
  42. Lévinas, E., 1972. Humanisme de l'autre homme. Saint-Clément-de-Rivière: Éditions Fata Morgana.
  43. Lévi-Strauss, C., 1982. The Way of the Masks (trans. S. Modelski). Seattle (WA): University of Washington Press.
  44. López-Uribe, M., J. Cane, R. Minckley & B. Danforth, 2016. Crop domestication facilitated rapid geographic expansion of a specialist pollinator, the squash bee Peponapis pruinosa. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (B) 283, 20160443.
  45. Lucas, G., 2015. Evidence of what? On the possibilities of archaeological interpretation, in Material Evidence: Learning from archaeological practice, eds A. Wylie & R. Chapman. London: Routledge, 311-23.
  46. Mickel, A., 2015. Reasons for redundancy in reflexivity: the role of diaries in archaeological epistemology. Journal of Field Archaeology 40(3), 300-309.
  47. Nativ, A., 2022. A case for Buried Culture: from an unknown known to a known unknown. Humans 2022 2(3), 74-94.
  48. OED Online, 2022. Oxford: Oxford University Press. www. oed.com (accessed 26 February 2023).
  49. Offenhuber, D., 2020. Data by proxy -material traces as autographic visualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26(1), 98-108. DOI: 10.1109/TVCG.2019.2934788
  50. Olsen, B., 2010. In Defense of Things: Archaeology and the ontology of objects. Lanham (MD): AltaMira.
  51. Olsen, B., 2012. After interpretation: remembering archae- ology. Current Swedish Archaeology 20, 11-34.
  52. Peirce, C.S., 1958. The Collected Papers. Volume 8. (ed. Arthur Burks). Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
  53. Preucel, R., 2006. Archaeological Semiotics. Oxford: Blackwell.
  54. Rheinberger, H.-J., 2011. Infra-experimentality: from traces to data, from data to patterning facts. History of Science 49, 337-48.
  55. Ricoeur, P., 1988. Time and Narrative. Vol. 3. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.
  56. Ricoeur, P., 2001. Memory, History and Forgetting. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.
  57. Routledge, B., 2021. Scaffolding and concept metaphors: building archaeological knowledge in practice, in Explorations in Archaeology and Philosophy, eds A. Killin & S. Allen-Hermanson. Cham: Springer, 47-63.
  58. Sabaux, C., B. Veselka, G. Capuzzo, et al., 2021. Multi-proxy analyses reveal regional cremation prac- tices and social status at the Late Bronze Age site of Herstal, Belgium. Journal of Archaeological Science 132, 105437.
  59. Sax, M., J. McNabb & N.D. Meeks, 1998. Methods of engraving Mesopotamian cylinder seals: experimen- tal confirmation. Archaeometry 40(1), 1-21.
  60. Serrano, R., 1997. Al-Buḥ turı's poetics of Persian abodes. Journal of Arabic Literature 28(1), 68-87.
  61. Serres, A., 2002. Quelle(s) problématique(s) de la trace? Paper presented at CERCOR, 13 December 2002. HAL Id: sic_00001397. https://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs. fr/sic_00001397 (accessed 25 February 2023).
  62. Shanks, M. & C. Tilley, 1987. Reconstructing Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  63. Star, L. & J. Griesemer, 1989. Institutional ecology, 'transla- tions' and boundary objects: amateurs and profes- sionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 19(3), 387-420.
  64. Strathern, M., 1988. The Gender of the Gift. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  65. Swenson, E. & C. Cipolla, 2020. Representation and materi- ality in archaeology: a semiotic reconciliation. World Archaeology 52(3), 313-29.
  66. Tschauner, H., 1996. Middle-range theory, behavioral archaeology, and postempiricist philosophy of sci- ence in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3(1), 1-30.
  67. Witmore, C., 2014. Archaeology and the new materialism. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 1(2), 1-44.
  68. Witmore, C., 2021. Finding symmetry? Archaeology, objects, and posthumanism. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 31(3), 477-85.
  69. Wylie, A., 2002. Thinking from Things: Essays in the philoso- phy of archaeology. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  70. Wylie, A., 2017a. How archaeological evidence bites back: strategies for putting old data to work in new ways. Science, Technology and Human Values 42(2), 203-25.
  71. Wylie, A., 2017b. Representational and experimental mod- elling in archaeology, in Springer Handbook of Model-Based Science, eds L. Magnani & T. Bertolotti. Cham: Springer, 989-1002.
  72. Yarrow, T., 2008. In context: meaning, materiality and agency in the process of archaeological recording, in Material Agency: Towards a non-anthropocentric approach, eds C. Knappett & L. Malafouris. New York (NY): Springer, 121-38.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

How do traces differ from traditional archaeological data in interpretation?add

The paper distinguishes traces from data by emphasizing that traces are contemporary phenomena evidencing past states, while data involves documentation that fixes unstable phenomena as stable entities for comparison.

What are the implications of recognizing traces for archaeological knowledge formation?add

Recognizing traces prompts awareness of their latent trace-value, which influences how archaeological data connects with constructs of the past and encourages future-oriented interpretations.

How do contemporary theories reframe the understanding of material remains?add

Recent approaches like new materialism and symmetrical archaeology shift focus from the past to the ontology of materiality, showcasing the ongoing realities of human deposition in the Anthropocene era.

What role does epistemic intervention play in interpreting archaeological traces?add

Epistemic interventions establish dependencies between traces and past phenomena, helping clarify interpretations derived from archaeological material while highlighting the uncertainty inherent in reconstruction.

How is 'trace' applied within Peirce’s semiotic framework for archaeology?add

The concept of trace in archaeology aligns with Peirce's semiotics, emphasizing the indexical character of traces as contemporaneous markers of past phenomena that guide interpretations.

Related papers

The Archaeological Record: Problems of Interpretation
Olof Brandt

2009

View PDFchevron_right
Contemporary Issues in Archaeological Theory
Ömür Harmansah

This course explores how archaeologists make sense of the world from artifacts of the past. Human practices and cultural processes resonate, live within the material traces that surround us in our everyday life. How do archaeologists re-imagine these traces as residues of real people in history rather than imaginary beings and ghosts? How do archaeologists place material objects and spaces in the context of human practices, cultural processes and long-term history? In short, we will read, think and write about archaeological ways of thinking about the world. Archaeology, as a modern discipline, investigates the past through the study of its material remains. This material record is documented and interpreted through various intellectual activities from fieldwork to publication. But archaeologists are usually torn between their work in the field (digging, surveying, drawing, travelling, taking notes) and in their academic environment (processing data, interpreting, publishing). Throughout the semester we will spend some thought on this divided life between the field and discourse, and explore some of the novel attempts have been made to bridge them. Archaeology frequently becomes entangled with our daily lives through its politicized engagement with the past and issues of identity. We will examine various theoretical approaches and historiographic models used in archaeology since its inception in the 19th century, while putting a particular emphasis on the recent developments in the theories and methodologies in archaeology in the last few decades. It is intended to provide a solid theoretical and historigraphic basis for the discipline of archaeology. The first few weeks of the course will be dedicated to discussing the central movements in the discipline such as culture-history, New Archaeology, and contextual archaeology, while the second half deals with more contemporary theoretical paradigms such as gender and sexuality, technology and agency, space, place and landscape, and issues of cultural heritage. Particular archaeological materials, sites, projects will be used in discussing the potentials and disadvantages of various approaches. Archaeological case studies will be drawn mostly from the ancient Western Asian and Mediterranean worlds.

View PDFchevron_right
Anthropology and Traces [Anthropological Theory Journal]
Valentina Napolitano

2015

Anthropology and Traces Abstract: This article explores the trace as a methodological tool and theoretical pathway in anthropology and beyond. Traces signal the limits of representation, they are the materials of knots of histories at the margins, as well as auratic presences. Through a critical reading of key ethnographic works, including an analysis of a Casa del Popolo in Rome which has been turned into a squat by Peruvian migrants, this article argues that the study of traces has an important genealogy in anthropology. This study invites us to explore the mattering of things (as forms becoming of importance), new ways of conjuring and operationalizing ethnographic ‘details’ and to broaden our debate of an anthropology beyond the subject, in the light of the mattering of histories. [Traces, Migration, Anthropology, Histories, Materialities, Psychoanalysis, Rome]

View PDFchevron_right
Why Archaeology Today? What Archaeology Today?
Mauro Puddu

Mauro Puddu, 2022

Is archaeology a discipline of things or a discipline of traces? This article deals with this crucial issue analysing some possible consequences of one or the other route.

View PDFchevron_right
Traces by Design: Towards an Archaeological Method
Michael Shanks

Museum of Art and Design Benešov CK, 2023

With Alfred Gell, Itta Weinryb, Boris Groys. Edited by Kryštof Hejný. A companion publication to the exhibition Archaeology of Design, Museum of art and design Benešov CK. Na stopě designu: K archeologické metodě: Doprovodná publikace k výstavě Archeologie designu.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Philosophy of Archaeology
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved