Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 305–330 | Cite as

Jean-Claude Gardin on Archaeological Data, Representation and Knowledge: Implications for Digital Archaeology

  • Costis DallasEmail author


This paper presents Jean-Claude Gardin’s distinctive approach to archaeological data, representation and knowledge in the context of his early engagement with semiotics and structural semantics 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 ambivalence 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, recognizing the contextual, theory-laden nature of archaeological data constitution, the priority of focusing on actual archaeological interpretation practices and the complementarity between narrative and formal representations of archaeological reasoning. It connects his early development of archaeological descriptive and typological metalanguages with his later elaboration of a theoretically informed approach to archaeological argumentation, analysis and publication, situates his logicist programme as a relevant contribution 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 highlights aspects of Gardin’s work that point to potentially fruitful directions for contemporary research and practice in the field of archaeological informatics and digital humanities communication.


Jean-Claude Gardin History of archaeological thought Logicism Data constitution Knowledge representation Archaeological reasoning Digital publication 



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 Programme (Grant Agreement No. 313193).


  1. ACLS. (2006). Our cultural commonwealth: The report of the American Council of Learned Societies Commission on cyberinfrastructure for the humanities and social sciences. American Council of Learned Societies. Accessed 15 Apr 2009.
  2. Anderson, S. (2013). What are research infrastructures? International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 7(1–2), 4–23. doi: 10.3366/ijhac.2013.0078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 Technologies. Presented at the Conference on Cultural Heritage and New Technologies, Vienna: Stadt Archäologie Wien. Accessed 23 Nov 2014.
  4. 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). Accessed 14 Sept 2014.
  5. Barceló, J. A. (2007). Automatic archaeology. In S. Kenderdine & F. Cameron (Eds.), Theorizing digital cultural heritage (pp. 437–56). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Accessed 17 Aug 2014.
  6. Barceló, J. A. (2009). The birth and historical development of computational intelligence applications in archaeology. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 20, 95–109. Accessed 31 Mar 2014.Google Scholar
  7. Bawaya, M. (2007). Archaeology: curation in crisis. Science, 317(5841), 1025–1026. Accessed 22 June 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benardou, A., Constantopoulos, P., Dallas, C., & Gavrilis, D. (2010a). Understanding the information requirements of arts and humanities scholarship: implications for digital curation. International Journal of Digital Curation, 5(1), 18–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 iConference 2010: The fifth annual iConference, Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.
  10. 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: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2132176.2132322.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bentley, R. A., Chippindale, C., & Maschner, H. D. G. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of archaeological theories. Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Bintliff, J. L. (Ed.). (2004). A companion to archaeology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. Accessed 14 Jan 2014.
  18. Borillo, M., & Gardin, J.-C. (1974). Banques de données archéologiques, Marseille 12-14 juin 1972. Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique.Google Scholar
  19. Bustard, W. (2000). Archeological curation in the 21st century: or, making sure the roof doesn’t blow off. Cultural Resource Management, 23(5), 10–15. Accessed 22 June 2014.Google Scholar
  20. Charles, V., Isaac, A., Fernie, K., Dallas, C., Gavrilis, D., & Angelis, S. (2013). Achieving interoperability between 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. Accessed 9 May 2014.
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Childs, S. T. (1995). The curation crisis. Federal Archaeology, 7(4), 11–15. Accessed 22 June 2014.Google Scholar
  23. 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). Presented at the International Conference on Virtual Systems and MultiMedia (VSMM08), Nicosia, Cyprus. Accessed 14 Nov 2013.
  24. Cowgill, G. L. (1967). Computer applications in archaeology. Computers and the Humanities, 2(1), 17–23. doi: 10.1007/BF02402460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Crofts, N., Doerr, M., Gill, T., Stead, S., & Stiff, M. (Eds.). (2010). Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (version 5.0.2). ICOM/CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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. Accessed 8 Aug 2008.
  29. Dallas, C. (1997). A step beyond reading in archaeological publication. Archives and Museum Informatics, 11(1), 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.
  31. Dallas, C. (2007b). An agency-oriented approach to digital curation theory and practice. In J. Trant & D. Bearman (Eds.), The International Cultural Heritage Informatics Meeting Proceedings. Presented at the ICHIM07: International Cultural Heritage Informatics Meeting, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Accessed 5 Aug 2009.
  32. De Waard, A., Buckingham Shum, S., Carusi, A., Park, J., Samwald, M., & Sándor, Á. (2009). Hypotheses, evidence and relationships: The HypER approach for representing scientific knowledge claims. Accessed 13 Sep 2014.
  33. 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). Accessed 23 Nov 2014.
  34. 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 Sept 2014.Google Scholar
  35. 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. Accessed 30 Jan 2014.
  36. Douven, I. (2011). Abduction. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2011.). Accessed 5 Sept 2014.
  37. Edgeworth, M. (2006). Ethnographies of archaeological practice: Cultural encounters, material transformations. Lanham: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  38. Eliott, R. (1994). Towards a material culture methodology. In S. M. Pearce (Ed.), Interpreting objects and collections (pp. 109–123). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Ellis, D. (1993). Modeling the information-seeking patterns of academic researchers: a grounded theory approach. The Library Quarterly, 63(4), 469–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 Sept 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fogelin, L. (2007). Inference to the best explanation: a common and effective form of archaeological reasoning. American Antiquity, 603–625. Accessed 14 Sept 2014.Google Scholar
  42. Gallay, A. (1989). Logicism: a French view of archaeological theory founded in computational perspective. Antiquity, 63(238), 27–39. Accessed 31 Mar 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gallay, A. (1998). Mathematics and logicism in archaeology: A historical approach. In S. Tabaczynski (Ed.), Dialogue 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. Accessed 31 Mar 2014.
  44. 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 Oct 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gardin, J.-C. (1965a). On a possible interpretation of componential analysis in archeology. American Anthropologist, 67(5), 9–22. Accessed 12 Aug 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gardin, J.-C. (1965b). Syntol. Graduate School of Library Service, Rutgers, the State University. Accessed 17 Apr 2014.Google Scholar
  47. Gardin, J.-C. (1967). Methods for the descriptive analysis of archaeological material. American Antiquity, 32(1), 13–30. Accessed 12 Aug 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gardin, J.-C. (1971). Archaeology and computers: new perspectives. International Social Science Journal, 23(2), 189–203.Google Scholar
  49. Gardin, J.-C. (1973). Document analysis and linguistic theory. Journal of Documentation, 29(2), 137–168. doi: 10.1108/eb026553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Gardin, J.-C. (1979). Une archéologie théorique. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
  51. Gardin, J.-C. (1980). Archaeological constructs: An aspect of theoretical archaeology. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Gardin, J.-C. (1989). Artificial intelligence and the future of semiotics: an archaeological perspective. Semiotica, 77(1–3), 5–26. Accessed 16 Apr 2014.Google Scholar
  53. 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: British Library Board.Google Scholar
  54. 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.Google Scholar
  55. Gardin, J.-C. (1996). Cognitive issues in archaeology. Archaeologia Polona, 34, 205–232. Accessed 16 Apr 2014.Google Scholar
  56. Gardin, J.-C. (1999). Calcul et narrativité dans les publications archéologiques. Archeologia e Calcolatori.
  57. Gardin, J.-C. (2002). Les modèles logico-discursifs en archéologie. text. Accessed 13 Aug 2008.
  58. Gardin, J.-C., & Lagrange, M. S. (1975). Essais d’analyse du discours archéologique. Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique.Google Scholar
  59. Gardin, J.-C., & Roux, V. (2004). The Arkeotek project: a European network of knowledge bases in the archaeology of techniques. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 15, 25–40. Accessed 24 Oct 2008.Google Scholar
  60. Gavrilis, D., Dallas, C., & Angelis, S. (2013). A curation-oriented thematic aggregator. In T. Aalberg, C. Papatheodorou, 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. Accessed 2 Dec 2013.
  61. 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: International Conference on Cultural Heritage, Lemessos, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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. Accessed 19 July 2013.
  64. Greene, K., & Moore, T. (2010). Archaeology: An introduction. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  65. 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 Sept 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Guermandi, M. P. (1999). Dalle basi dati alla rete: l’evoluzione del trattamento dei dati archeologici. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 10, 89–100. Accessed 16 Apr 2014.Google Scholar
  67. Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M. (1990). Les bases de données en archéologie: Conception et mise en oeuvre. Pari: Centre national de la recherche scientifique.Google Scholar
  68. 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.Google Scholar
  69. Hansen, H. J., & Fernie, K. (2010). CARARE: Connecting archaeology and architecture in Europeana. In Digital Heritage (pp. 450–462). Springer. Accessed 1 Apr 2013.
  70. Harman, G. H. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. The Philosophical Review, 88–95. Accessed 7 Sept 2014.Google Scholar
  71. Heyworth, M., Ross, S., & Richards, J. (1996). Internet archaeology: An electronic journal for archaeology. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, 28(Interfacing the Past. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, CAA95), 517–523.Google Scholar
  72. Hodder, I. (Ed.). (1987). The archaeology of contextual meanings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Hodder, I. (2012). Archaeological theory today. London: Polity.Google Scholar
  74. Hodder, I., & Hutson, S. (2003). Reading the past: Current approaches to interpretation in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Accessed 30 Jan 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Hug, C., Salinesi, C., Deneckere, R., & Lamasse, S. (2012). Process modeling for humanities: Tracing and analyzing 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, China, 12-16 April 2011 (pp. 245–255). Beijing, Chine: Amsterdam University Press. Accessed 8 Feb 2013.
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Huggett, J. (2013). Disciplinary issues: Challenging the research and practice of computer applications in archaeology. In G. Earl, T. Sly, A. Chrysanthi, P. Murrieta-Flores, C. Papadopoulos, I. Romanowska, & D. 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.Google Scholar
  78. 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 Mar 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Hunter, J. (2009). Collaborative semantic tagging and annotation systems. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 43(1), 1–84. doi: 10.1002/aris.2009.1440430111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Hyvönen, E. (2012). Publishing and using cultural heritage linked data on the Semantic Web. Palo Alto: Morgan & Claypool. doi: 10.2200/S00452ED1V01Y201210WBE003. Accessed 19 Jan 2014.Google Scholar
  81. Isaksen, L. (2011). Archaeology and the semantic web. University of Southampton. Retrieved from
  82. Jones, A. (2001). Archaeological theory and scientific practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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. Accessed 14 Jan 2014.
  84. 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. Accessed 14 Jan 2014.
  85. 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).Google Scholar
  86. Kintigh, K. (2006). The promise and challenge of archaeological data integration. American Antiquity, 71(3), 567–578. doi: 10.2307/40035365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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 Sept 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 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.Google Scholar
  89. Lagrange, M. S., & Bonnet, C. (1978). Les chemins de la “Mémoria”: Nouvel essai d’analyse du discours archéologique. Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique.Google Scholar
  90. Lakoff, G. (1970). Linguistics and natural logic. Synthese, 22, 151–271. Accessed 6 Sept 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Lawrence, B., Jones, C., Matthews, B., Pepler, S., & Callaghan, S. (2011). Citation and peer review of data: moving towards formal data publication. International Journal of Digital Curation, 6(2), 4–37. doi: 10.2218/ijdc.v6i2.205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Lee, E. (1998). MIDAS: A manual and data standard for monument inventories. Swindon, UK: RCHME, Data Standards Unit, National Monuments Record Centre.
  93. 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. Accessed 13 Sept 2014.
  94. Lipton, P. (2000). Inference to the best explanation. In W. H. Newton-Smith (Ed.), A companion to the philosophy of science (pp. 184–193). Oxford: Blackwell. Accessed 7 Sept 2014.
  95. 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). Accessed 22 June 2014.
  96. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Moscati, P. (2013). Jean-Claude Gardin (Parigi 1925-2013). Dalla meccanografia all’informatica archeologica. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 24, 7–24. Accessed 16 Apr 2014.Google Scholar
  98. Niccolucci, F., & Richards, J. D. (2013). ARIADNE: advanced research infrastructures for archaeological dataset networking in Europe. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 7(1–2), 70–88. doi: 10.3366/ijhac.2013.0082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Orlandi, T. (2004). Archeologia teorica e informatica archeologica. Un rapporto difficile. Archeologia e Calcolatori, (XV), 41–50. Accessed 16 Apr 2014.Google Scholar
  100. Palmer, C. L., Teffeau, L. C., & Pirmann, C. M. (2009). Scholarly information practices in the online environment. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC.
  101. Panofsky, E. (1962). Studies in iconology. Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  102. Papatheodorou, C., Carlisle, P., Ertmann-Christiansen, C., & Fernie, K. (2011). The CARARE metadata schema, v. 1.1. CARARE project. Accessed 1 Apr 2013.
  103. Parsons, M. A., & Fox, P. A. (2013). Is data publication the right metaphor? Data Science Journal, 12, WDS32–WDS46. Accessed 10 Aug 2014.Google Scholar
  104. 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 Aug 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Preucel, R. W., & Mrozowski, S. A. (Eds.). (2010). Contemporary archaeology in theory: The new pragmatism. Wiley.Google Scholar
  106. Prown, J. D. (1982). Mind in matter: an introduction to material culture theory and method. Winterthur Portfolio, 17(1), 1–19. Accessed 29 Dec 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Renear, A. H., & Palmer, C. L. (2009). Strategic reading, ontologies, and the future of scientific publishing. Science, 325(5942), 828–832. Accessed 9 Aug 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Renfrew, C., & Bahn, P. (2012). Archaeology: Theories, methods, and practice. Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
  109. Richards, J. D. (2002). Digital preservation and access. European Journal of Archaeology, 5(3), 343–366. doi: 10.1177/146195702761692347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Richards, J. D. (2006). Archaeology, e-publication and the Semantic Web. Antiquity, 80(310), 970–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Richards, J. D. (2008). Managing digital preservation and access: The archaeology data service. Managing archaeological resources: Global context, national programs, local actions, 58, 173. Accessed 30 Dec 2013.Google Scholar
  112. Richards, J. D. (2009). From anarchy to good practice: the evolution of standards in archaeological computing. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 27–35. Accessed 17 Aug 2014.Google Scholar
  113. Roux, V. (2004). Faciliter la consultation de textes scientifiques. Nouvelles pratiques éditoriales… Hermès. (39), 151–159.Google Scholar
  114. Roux, V., & Aussenac, N. (2013). Knowledge basis and query tools for a better cumulativity in the field of archaeology: The Arkeotek Project. In F. Contreras, M. Farjas, & 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.Google Scholar
  115. Roux, V., & Courty, M.-A. (2013a). Introduction to 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), 187–193. Accessed 31 Mar 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 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 Sept 2014.Google Scholar
  117. Shanks, M., & Tilley, C. Y. (1992). Re-constructing archaeology: Theory and practice. London; New York: Routledge.
  118. Shepard, A. O. (1948). The symmetry of abstract design with special reference to ceramic decoration. Carnegie Institution of Washington.Google Scholar
  119. Shotton, D. (2009). Semantic publishing: the coming revolution in scientific journal publishing. Learned Publishing, 22, 85–94. doi: 10.1087/2009202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 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. Accessed 13 Sept 2014.Google Scholar
  121. Shum, S. J. B., Selvin, A. M., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Haley, C. B., & Nuseibeh, B. (2006). Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale. In A. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, & B. Paech (Eds.), Rationale management in software engineering (pp. 111–132). Berlin: Springer. Accessed 14 Sept 2014.
  122. Smith, M. (2011). Communicating with data: new roles for scientists, publishers and librarians. Learned Publishing, 24(3), 203–205. Accessed 13 Sept 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures (Vol. 130). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Accessed 17 Nov 2014.
  124. Spaulding, A. C. (1953). Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types. American Antiquity, 18, 305–313. Accessed 30 Sept 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 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: Quadrangle Books.Google Scholar
  126. Speck, R., & Links, P. (2013). The missing voice: archivists and infrastructures for humanities research. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 7(1–2), 128–146. doi: 10.3366/ijhac.2013.0085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Stockinger, P. (1990). On Gardin’s logicist analysis. In T. Buksiński (Ed.), Interpretation in the humanities (pp. 284–304). Poznan: Uniwersytet Im. Adama Mickiewicza W Poznaniu.Google Scholar
  128. Toulmin, S. E. (2001). Return to reason. Harvard University Press. Accessed 12 Sept 2014.Google Scholar
  129. Trigger, B. G. (2006). A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Tung, B. (Ed.). (2013). Çatalhöyük 2013 archive report. Çatalhöyük Research Project. Accessed 15 Jan 2014.
  131. 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. Accessed 4 Aug 2009.
  132. Voss, B. L. (2012). Curation as research. A case study in orphaned and underreported archaeological collections. Archaeological Dialogues, 19(2), 145–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Washburn, D. K. (1977). A symmetry analysis of upper Gila area ceramic design. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Cambridge, Mass., 68, 1–190. Accessed 6 Sept 2014.Google Scholar
  134. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Wylie, A. (2002). Thinking from things: essays in the philosophy of archaeology. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Accessed 24 Apr 2014.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of InformationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Digital Curation Unit-IMISAthena Research CentreMaroussiGreece

Personalised recommendations