Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T04:57:28.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The nature of archaeological arguments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Arthur Stutt and
Stephen Shennan
Arthur Stutt
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO9 5NH
Stephen Shennan
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO9 5NH
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We try (most of us) to be logical in our work. We listen to arguments (most of us) and try to be persuaded by that argument which is better – because it is more logical, because it is more reasonable, because it fits the facts better. But how reliably does one tell which is better – except by illogical intuition? Computer-aided study of the structure of arguments may help

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 64 , Issue 245 , December 1990, pp. 766 - 777
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1990

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baker, M. 1988. Arguing with the tutor: A model for a tutorial dialogue in uncertain knowledge domains. Milton Keynes: The Open University. CITE Report No. 51, Institute of Educational Technology.Google Scholar
Blair, J.A. & Johnson., R.H. 1987. Argumentation as dialectical, Argumentation 1(1): 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, J. 1987. Hypertext: a survey and introduction, IEEE Computer 20(9): 17–41.Google Scholar
Fisher, A. 1988. The logic of real arguments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frankel, H. 1987. The continental drift debate, in Engelhardt, H.T. & Caplan, A.L., Scientific controversies: 203–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gallay, A. 1989. Logicism: a French view of archaeological theory founded in computational perspective, Antiquity 63: 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardin, J.-C. 1980. Archaeological constructs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gardin, J.-C, Guillaume, O., Herman, Q., Hesnard, A., Lagrange, M.-S., Renaud, M. & Zadora-Rio., E. 1987. Systemes experts et sciences humaines: le cas de J’archeologie. Paris: Eyrolles.Google Scholar
Gilman, A. 1981. The development of social stratification in Bronze Age Europe, Current Anthropology 22(1): 1–23.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1989. Writing archaeology: site reports in context, Antiquity 63: 268–74.Google Scholar
Legge, A.J. & Rowley-Conwy., P.A. 1988. Star Carr revisited. London: Centre for Extra-Mural Studies, University of London.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, D.J. 1977. Two concepts of argument, The Journal of the American Forensic Association 13(3): 121–8.Google Scholar
Rahtz, S., Carr, L. & Hall., W. 1989. New designs for archaeological reports, Science and Archaeology 31: 20–34.Google Scholar
Reichman, R. 1985. Getting computers TO talk like you and me. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1972. The emergence of civilisation. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Rowland, R.C. 1987. On defining argument, Philosophy and Rhetoric 20(3): 140–59.Google Scholar
Sablofe, J.A., Binford, L.R. & McAnany., P.A. 1987. Understanding the archaeological record, Antiquity 61: 203–9.Google Scholar
Salmon, M.H. 1982. Philosophy and archaeology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Scriven, M. 1976. Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley., C. 1987. Social theory and archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Shennan, S.J. In press. The excavation of an early Bronze Age settlement at St Veit-Klinglberg, Land Salzburg, Austria: an interim report, The Antiquaries Journal.Google Scholar
Stutt, A. 1988. Second generation expert systems, explanations, arguments and archaeology, in Rahtz, S.P.Q. (ed.), Computer and quantitative methods in archaeology: 353–68. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International series S446.Google Scholar
Stutt, A. 1989. Argument in the humanities: a knowledge-based approach. Unpublished Ph.D thesis. Available as Technical Report No. 49, HCRL, The Open University Google Scholar
Tilley, C. 1989. Excavation as theatre, Antiquity 63: 275–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S., Rjeke, R. & Janik., A. 1979. An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wlnograd, T. & Flores., F. 1986. Understanding computers and cognition. Norwood (NJ): Ablex.Google Scholar