Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T02:13:54.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The deconstruction of intentionality in archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Whitney Davis
Whitney Davis*
Affiliation:
Department of Art History, Northwestern University, Kresge Centennial Hall, Room 254, 1859 Sheridan Road, Evanston II. 60208-2208, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

All (or almost all) archaeology seeks to know the things that were by the evidence of the things that are, as battered and fragmented by centuries of collapse, decay, wear and breaking. And from the things that were, all (or almost all) archaeology seeks to know the people who were, to grasp the human meanings that were held in those things. The unthinking assumptions, common to old and new programmes for good archaeology, that go with this common framework are explored.

Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 66 , Issue 251 , June 1992 , pp. 334 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bechtel, W. 1988. Philosophy of mind: an overview for cognitive science. Hillsdale (NJ): L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1962. Archaeology as anthropology, American Antiquity 28: 271–25.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1983. In pursuit of the past: decoding the archaeological record. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1987. Searching for camps and missing the evidence?: another look at the lower paleolithic, in Soffer, O. (ed.), The pleistocene Old World: regional perspectives: 17–31. New York (NY): Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Boly, J.R. 1985. Nihilism aside: Derrida’s debate over intentional models, Philosophy and Literature 9: 152–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brand, M. 1984. Intending and acting: toward a naturalized action theory. Cambridge (MA); MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. 1987. Intentions, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Casey, E 1984. Origin(s) in (of) Heidegger/Derrida, Journal of Philosophy 81: 601–10.Google Scholar
Clark, J.G.D. 1986. Symbols of excellence: precious materials as expressions of status. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Conley, T. 1983. A trace of style, in Krupnick, M. (ed.), Displacements: Derrida and after: 74–92. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, W. 1989. The canonical tradition in ancient Egyptian art. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, W. 1992. Masking the blow: the scene of representation in late prehistoric Egyptian art. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D.C. 1983. Intentional systems in cognitive ethology: the ‘Panglossian paradigm’ defended, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6: 343–90.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. 1962. L’origine de Ja géometrie. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. 1967a. La voix et Je phénomène: introduction au probJème du signe dans Ja phénoménologie de Husserl. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. 1967b. La forme et le vouloir-dire: note sur la phénoménologie du langage, Revue internationaJe de phiJosophie 81: 277–99.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. 1978. Writing and difference. Trans. Bass, A. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. 1982. Positions. Trans. Bass, A.. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. 1987. The truth in painting. Trans. Bennington, G. & Mcleod, I. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Devitt, M. 1981. Designation. New York (NY): Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Donato, E. 1976. ‘Here, now’/‘always already’: incidental remarks on some recent characterizations of the text, Diacritics 6: 24 –9.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H.L. (ed.) 1982. Husserl, Intentionality, and cognitive science. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1892. On sense and reference, in Geach, P. & Black, M. (ed.), TransJations from the philosophi-caJ writings of Gottlob Frege 2nd edition (1960): 56–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gamble, C. 1986. The palaeolithic settlement of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
GaschÉ, R. 1986. The tain of the mirror: Derrida and the phiJosophy of reflection. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbon, G. 1984. Anthropological archaeology. New York (NY): Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Gould, R.A. 1980. Living archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in action: ethnoarchaeo-logicaJ studies of material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1985. Postprocessual archaeology, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8: 1–26.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1987a. (ed.) The archaeology of contextual meanings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1987b. The contribution of the long term, in Hodder, I. (ed.), Archaeology as long-term history: 1–8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1990. The domestication of Europe: structure and contingency in neolithic societies. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Isaac, G.L. 1972. Chronology and tempo of cultural change during the pleistocene, in Bishop, W.W., Miller, J.A. & Cole, S. (ed.), CaJibration of hominoid evolution: 381–430. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Isaac, G.L. 1976. Stages of cultural elaboration in the pleistocene: possible archaeological indicators of the development of language, AnnaJs of the New York Academy of Sciences 380: 275–88.Google Scholar
Isaac, G.L. 1986. Foundation stones: early artefacts as indicators of activities and abilities, in Bailey, G.N. & Callow, P. (ed.), Stone age prehistory: 221–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. 1980. Naming and necessity. 2nd edition. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lawlor, L. 1983. Temporality and spatiality: a note to a footnote in Jacques Derrida’s Writing and difference, Research in PhenomenoJogy 12: 149–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leone, M. 1986. Symbolic, structural, and critical archaeology, in Meitzer, D., Fowler, D. & Sabloff, J. (ed.), American archaeoJogy, past and future: 415–38. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Platt, R. 1986. Writing, différance and metaphysical closure, Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 17: 234–51.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B. 1987. Formation processes of the archaeological record. Albuquerque (NM): University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J.R. 1979. What is an Intentional state? Mind 88: 74–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.R. 1984. Intentionality and its place in nature. Dialectica 38: 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C. 1987. Re-constructing archaeology: theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spivak, G.C. 1980. Revolutions that as yet have no model: Derrida’s Limited Inc., Diacritics 10: 29–49.Google Scholar
Wilson, G.M. 1989. The intentionality of human action. Revised edition. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, D. & Bernasconi, R. 1988. Derrida and différance. Evanston (IL): Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar