Articles by Jean-Claude Gardin

Two major features have emerged lately in the communication patterns of archaeological research: (a) an increasing use of the Web as a channel of information transfer, to complement or occasionally replace printed publications; (b) an exploration of new forms of archaeological discourse related to that trend. The Arkeotek project combines the two approaches in a specific domain of archaeological research described as 'the archaeology of techniques' (hence its acronym). The present paper exposes the objectives and status of the European association recently set up under that name (2002), as well as its initial works and plans for the coming years. A comprehensive introduction deals with the origins and guiding principles of the project. The paper ends with a square review of the problems that lie ahead.

One of the tasks of cognitive archaeology according to C. RENFREW (1994) is «to use the well-established techniques of rational scientific inquiry, and to aim to develop these [...] by explicit theoretical formulations». Such is the purport of the ongoing research program initiated in France in the '70s on the logicist analysis and computational modelling of archaeological constructs (GARDIN 1979). A first assessment was presented to UISPP Commission 4 in 1990; the present paper describes advances of the program after that date in two directions, theoretical and pratical. 1. On the theoretical side, (a) new light has been shed on the position of the logicist analysis of archaeological papers (irrespective of their subject or denomination) in relation to recent work on natural logic or natural reasoning in the sciences of man; (b) further, the modelling function of the proposed 'schematisations' of argument has been brought out in the course of an ongoing debate on the respective part of Models and Narratives in the constitution of knowledge in the social sciences. The constraints to which mathematical models are currently subject are applicable to logico-discursive models as well: the same tests (formal coherence and empirical correspondence) are used to establish the validity of both; (c) lastly, as a logical follow-up of a and b, the case for a 'séparation des genres' has been strengthened, i.e. scientific models on the one hand, whether quantitative (mathematical) or qualitative (logicist), and/or imaginative amplifications of their findings on the other, both genres being however regarded as contributions to knowledge in a broad sense (BRUNER 1986). A large part of our discursive constructs belong to an intermediate or hybrid kind which tends to claim a distinct epistemological status, between or above the two genres. Doubt are raised about the future of this perspective in the long run; they found some unexpected support in Paul Ricoeur’s recent plea for a return to a stricter distinction between the cognitive and the rhetorical components in our «writing of history and representations of the past» (RICOEUR 2000). 2. On the pratical side, a new form of archaeological publication has been proposed (ROUX 2000), combining the principles of logicist analysis and new information technology. It consists in reformulating linear discursive constructs as tree-like structures of inference, expressed in computational terms (data base + rewrite formulas), and recording them on an electronic support, CD-ROM or web site, in order to take advantage of the navigational facilities of hypertext. No loss of cognitive substance is incurred in the process; and a partial answer is thereby offered to the 'reading vs. consultation issue' now widely acknowledged in scientific research, in the humanities as elsewhere.

Archaeological publications raise problems of many sorts, currently discussed in connection with computer networks and other technologies. One of them, however, seems somewhat neglected, namely the fact that we are mostly unable to read more than a fraction of the articles and books published in our respective fields of research. The substitution of electronic to printed publications does not fully meet that challenge. Complementary measures are needed, taking into account an acknowledged reality: our works are for the most part consulted, not read. The schematisation of archaeological constructs developed in the logicist perspective is meant to facilitate consultations; it is related to the computational paradigm of the information age. As such, however, it fails to fulfil one of the functions of historical works, associated with the narrative mode of thought and discourse. This paper advocates a parallel development of the two genres in archaeology, one through electronic publications of a radically new form, the other through printed works explicitly conceived as literary versions or expansions of the former.

Two components of the cognitive revolution are here considered in relation to archaeology: first, reflexivity, or in French "la pensée réfléchie", interested in exploration of its own process; second, computer science, which provides a useful framework for the analysis and simulation of reasoning process in a cognitive perspective. The "logicist" approach of archaeological constructs developed in France and Switzerland over the past decade follows those two axes. The present paper exposes some of the lessons gained from that research programme. One of them bears on the contribution of formal methods (logicism included) to the process of archaeological knowledge. This progress cannot be denied, despite contrary views expressed by the more radical relativists; but it seems to depend more on the empirical value of historical constructs than on their formal concerns. Another observation relates to the diversity of consequents derived from the same premises in archaeological argument, clearly brought out by logicist schematizations. Interesting questions are raised on that basis, regarding the sources and consequences of the phenomenon: (a) practical questions, such as probable changes in the functions and forms of archaeological publications; (b) theoretical issues, related to the current debate on the position of the humanities "between" Science, Literature and Common sense.