Advanced search
Publication Cover
Norwegian Archaeological Review Volume 53, 2020 - Issue 2
Submit an article Journal homepage
244
Views
3
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

In Pursuit of a Reflexive Recording. An Epistemic Analysis of Excavation Diaries from the Çatalhöyük Research Project

Gustavo SandovalCorrespondence[email protected]
ORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2534-0779View further author information
ORCID Icon
Pages 135-153 | Published online: 28 Jan 2021

Primary sources

REFERENCES

  • Andrews, G., Barrett, J., and Lewis, J., 2000. Interpretation not record: the practice of archaeology. Antiquity, 74 (285), 525–530. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00059871
  • Austin, J.L., 1962. Sense and sensibilia. G. Warnock, ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Baird, J.A., 2017. Framing the past: situating the archaeological in photographs. Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies, 26 (2), 165–186. doi:10.1080/13569325.2017.1309315
  • Berggren, Å., 2014. Reflexive approaches in archaeology. In: C. Smith, ed. Encyclopedia of global archaeology. New York: Springer, 6249–6258.
  • Berggren, Å., et al., 2015. Revisiting reflexive archaeology at Çatalhöyük: integrating digital and 3D technologies at the trowel’s edge. Antiquity, 89 (344), 433–448. doi:10.15184/aqy.2014.43
  • Berggren, Å., and Hodder, I., 2003. Social practice, method, and some problems of field archaeology. American Antiquity, 68 (3), 421–434. doi:10.2307/3557102
  • Berggren, Å., and Nilsson, B., 2014. Going back, looking forward: reflexive archaeology or reflexive method? In: I. Hodder, ed. Integrating Çatalhöyük : themes from the 2000-2008 seasons. Los Angeles, CA: British Institute at Ankara, 57–70.
  • Boddington, M.I., 2013. Truth in archaeology: justification in archaeology. Thesis (PhD). University of Cambridge.
  • Carver, M., 2009. Archaeological investigation. London: Routledge.
  • Carver, M., 2011. Making archaeology happen: design versus dogma. California: Left Coast Press.
  • Chadwick, A., 2003. Post-processualism, professionalization and archaeological methodologies. Towards reflective and radical practice. Archaeological Dialogues, 10 (1), 97–117. doi:10.1017/S1380203803001107
  • Conneller, C., et al., 2012. Substantial settlement in the European early Mesolithic: new research at Star Carr. Antiquity, 86 (334), 1004–1020. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00048213
  • Eddisford, D., 2006. Building 49. In: Çatalhöyük 2006 archive report [online]. Çatalhöyük Research Project, 71–78. Available from: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2006 [Accessed 27 April 2020].
  • Eddisford, D., 2008. Building 49 Archive report 2008. In: Çatalhöyük 2008 archive report [online]. Catalhoyuk Research Project, 30–38. Available from: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2008 [Accessed 27 April 2020].
  • Eddisford, D., 2014. Building 49. In: I. Hodder, ed. Çatalhöyük Excavations. The 2000–2008 Seasons. London: British Institute at Ankara, 313–356.
  • Edgeworth, M., 2003. Acts of discovery: an ethnography of archaeological practice. Oxford: Archaeopress.
  • Edgeworth, M., 2012a. Reply to Comments from Åsa Berggren, Alfredo González-Ruibal, Tim Ingold, Gavin Lucas, Robin Skeates and Christopher Witmore. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 45 (1), 106–114. doi:10.1080/00293652.2012.679432
  • Edgeworth, M., 2012b. Follow the cut, follow the rhythm, follow the material. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 45 (1), 76–92. doi:10.1080/00293652.2012.669995
  • Evans, C., 1998. Constructing houses and building context: Bersu’s Manx round-house campaign. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 64, 183–201. doi:10.1017/S0079497X00002218
  • Farid, S., 2000. The excavation process at Çatalhöyük. In: I. Hodder, ed. Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 19–36.
  • Farid, S., 2015. Proportional representation: multiple voices in archaeological interpretation at Catalhoyuk. In: R. Chapman and A. Wylie, eds. Material evidence learning from archaeological practice. London: Routledge, 59–78.
  • Greene, E., 2011. Why keep a field notebook? In: M.R. Canfield, ed. Field notes on science and nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 251–274.
  • Hodder, I., 1989. Writing archaeology: site reports in context. Antiquity, 63 (239), 268–274. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00075980
  • Hodder, I., 1997. ‘Always momentary, fluid and flexible’: towards a reflexive excavation methodology. Antiquity, 71 (273), 691–700. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00085410
  • Hodder, I., 1999. The archaeological process: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Hodder, I., 2000. Developing a reflexive method in archaeology. In: I. Hodder, ed. Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 3–18.
  • Hodder, I., 2005. Reflexive method. In: H. Maschner and C. Chippindale, eds. Handbook of archaeological methods. Volume 1. Oxford: Altamira Press, 643–669.
  • Hodder, I., and Farid, S., 2014. Questions, history of work and summary of results. In: I. Hodder, ed. Çatalhöyük excavations : the 2000-2008 seasons. London: British Institute at Ankara, 1–34.
  • Keller, J., 2011. Why Sketch? In: M.R. Canfield, ed. Field notes on science and nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 161–185.
  • Kramer, K., 2011. The Spoken and the Unspoken. In: M.R. Canfield, ed. Field notes on science and nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 109–127.
  • Krotscheck, U., 2003. Space 100. In: Çatalhöyük 2003 archive report [online]. Çatalhöyük Research Project, 23–26. Available from: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/research/archive_report [Accessed 27 April 2020].
  • Krotscheck, U., 2004. Building 49. In: Catalhoyuk 2004 archive report [online]. Çatalhöyük Research Project. Available from: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2004/ [Accessed 27 April 2020].
  • Leibhammer, N., 2000. Rendering realities. In: I. Hodder, ed. Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 129–142.
  • Lucas, G., 2009. Modes of recording. In: C. Evans, ed. Fengate revisited: further Fen-edge excavations, bronze age fieldsystems and settlement and the Wyman Abbott/Leeds Archives. Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological Unit, 232.
  • Lucas, G., 2012. Understanding the archaeological record. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lucas, G., 2014. Interpretation in archaeological theory. In: C. Smith, ed. Encyclopedia of global archaeology. New York: Springer, 4013–4022.
  • Mickel, A., 2015. Reasons for redundancy in reflexivity: the role of diaries in archaeological epistemology. Journal of Field ArchaeologyI, 40 (3), 300–309. doi:10.1179/2042458214Y.0000000002
  • Morgan, C., and Wright, H., 2018. Pencils and pixels: drawing and digital media in archaeological field recording. Journal of Field Archaeology, 43 (2), 136–151. doi:10.1080/00934690.2018.1428488
  • Museum of London, 1994. Archaeological site manual. Museum of London archaeological service. 3rd ed. London: Museum of London Archaeology Service.
  • Radder, H., 2006. The world observed, the world conceived. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Roskams, S., 2001. Excavation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Shanks, M., 1997. Photography and archaeology. In: B.L. Molyneaux, ed. The cultural life of images: visual representation in archaeology. New York: Routledge, 73–107.
  • Silverman, D., 2011. Interpreting qualitative data: a guide to the principles of qualitative research. 4th ed. London: Sage.
  • Sparks, R.T., 2013. Flinders Petrie through words and deed: re-evaluating Petrie’s field techniques and their impact on object recovery in British mandate Palestine. Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 145 (2), 143–159. doi:10.1179/0031032813Z.00000000049
  • Stevanovic, M., 2000. Visualizing and Vocalizing the Archaeological Archival Record: In: I. Hodder, ed. Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: the Example at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 235–241.
  • Thorpe, R., 2012. Often fun, usually messy: fieldwork, recording and higher order of things. In:H. Cobb, et al., eds. Reconsidering Archaeological Fieldwork: exploring On-Site Relationships between Theory and Practice. London: Springer, 31–52.
  • Topper, D., 1996. Towards an Epistemology of Scientific Illustration. In: B. Baigrie, ed. Picturing knowledge: historical and philosophical problems concerning the use of art in science. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 215–249.
  • Watson, S., 2019. Whither archaeologists? Continuing challenges to field practice. Antiquity, 93 (372), 1643–1652. doi:10.15184/aqy.2019.141

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.