Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:03:22.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Capta and Data: On the True Nature of Archaeological Information

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Christopher Chippindale
Christopher Chippindale*
Affiliation:
Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology & Anthropology, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Is the customary word "data" a good name for archaeological records and facts? "Data" means the things that are "given," but archaeological observations and facts are never given at all. Rather, they are captured by the researcher, who seeks to grasp from the material record the essentials of some complex and little-known phenomenon, often remote in time and usually ambiguous in material expression. We should prefer to use the better word "capta," the things that have been captured, and to realize that this word captures the essence of what we do.

Resumen

Resumen

¿Acaso la noción de "datos" es adecuada para describir los registros y hechos arqueológicos? "Dato" significa "lo dado," mas las observaciones y los hechos arqueológicos nunca puedan darse por "dados." Son, en cambio, capturados por el investigador que busca aprehender del registro material los aspectos esenciales de un fenómeno complejo y poco conocido, frecuentemente de un pasado remoto, generalmente ambiguo en su expresión material. Deberiamos preferir la palabra "capta," las cosas que han sido capturadas, y estar siempre conscientes de esto tanto en nuestras actitudes para con los materiales arqueológicos como en la compresión del pasado que de ellas desprendemos.

Type
Forum
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 65 , Issue 4 , October 2000 , pp. 605 - 612
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2000

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

References Cited

Aldenderfer, M. 2000 Quantitative Thinking and Archaeometric Analysis. In Archaeology, Anthropology, and Archaeometry, edited by Rice, P. M., Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, in press.Google Scholar
Barclay, G. J. 1999 Cairnpapple Revisited: 1948-1998. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65: 17–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckensall, S. 2000 Prehistoric Rock Art in Britain. Tempus, Stroud.Google Scholar
Budd, P., Gale, D., Pollard, A.M., Thomas, R. G., and Williams, P. A. 1993a Evaluating Lead Isotope Data: Further Observations. Archaeometry 35: 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckensall, S. 1993b Comments [on Budd et al. (1993a)]: Reply: Archaeometry 35: 262–263.Google Scholar
Carr, C. (ed.) 1985 For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis. Westport Press, Kansas City, Missouri.Google Scholar
Chaffee, S. D., Hyman, M., Rowe, M. W. 1993 AMS 14C Dating of Rock Paintings. In Time and Space, edited by Steinbring, J. et al., pp. 67–73. Occasional Publication 8. Melbourne, Australian Rock Art Research Association.Google Scholar
Chippindale, C, and Gill, D. W. G. 2000 Material Consequences of Contemporary Classical Collecting. American Journal of Archaeology, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coles, J. M. 1999 The Dancer on the Rock: Record and Analysis at Jarrestad, Sweden. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65: 167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coles, J. M., and Harding, A. F. 1979 The Bronze Age in Europe: An Introduction to the Prehistory of Europe c. 2000-700 be. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Embree, L. 1987 Archaeology: The Most Basic Science of All. Antiquity 61: 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, N. H” and Stos-Gale, Z. A. 1992 Evaluating Lead Isotope Data [comments on Sayre, Yener, Joel and Barnes (1992)] I. Archaeometry 34: 311–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, N. H., and Stos-Gale, Z. A. 1993 Comments [on Budd et al. (1993a)] II. Archaeometry 35: 252–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, D. W. G., and Chippindale, C., 1993 Material and Intellectual Consequences of Esteem for Cycladic Figures. American Journal of Archaeology 97: 601–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, D. W. G., and Chippindale, C., Helskog, C. 2000 The Tyranny of the Figures: On the Interrelationship between Narratives, Rock-art and their Surfaces: Observations from the Top of Europe. Paper presented at the Lewis- Williams colloquium, Johannesburg, April.Google Scholar
Gill, D. W. G., and Chippindale, C., 2001 Landscapes in Rock-art: Rock-carving and Ritual in the Old European North. In Landscapes of rock-art, edited by Chippindale, C. and Nash, G., in press.Google Scholar
Ilger, W.A., Hyman, M., Soufhon, J., and Rowe, M. W. 1995 Dating Pictographs with Radiocarbon. Radiocarbon 37: 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junghans, S., Sangmeister, E., and Schroder, M. 1960 Metallanalysen Kupferzeitlicher und Friihbronzezeitlicher Bodenfunde aus Europe. StudienderAnfang der Metallurgie 1. Mann, Berlin.Google Scholar
Junghans, S., Sangmeister, E., and Schroder, M. 1968 Kupfer und Bronze in der Friihen Metallzeit Europas. Studien der Anfang der Metallurgie 2. Mann, Berlin.Google Scholar
Leese, M. 1992 Evaluating Lead Isotope Data [comments on Sayre, Yener, Joel and Barnes (1992)] II. Archaeometry 34: 318–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Williams, J. D., and Dowson, T. A. 1990 Through the Veil: San Rock Paintings and the Rock Face. South African Archaeological Bulletin 45: 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loy, T. H. 1994 Direct Dating of Rock Art at Laurie Creek (NT), Australia: A Reply to Nelson. Antiquity 68: 147–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyman, R. L. 1994 Quantitative Units and Terminology in Zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 59: 36–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, D. E. 1993 Second Thoughts on a Rock-art Date. Antiquity 67: 893–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orton, C. 1993 How Many Pots Make Five?—An Historical Review of Pottery Quantification. Archaeometry 35: 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouzman, S. 1998 Toward a Mindscape of Landscape: Rock-art as Expression of World-understanding. In The Archaeology of Rockart, edited by Chippindale, C. and S, P.. C. Tagon, pp. 30–41. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Peebles, C. and Gardin, J.-C. (ed.) 1992 Representations in Archaeology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
Pernicka, E. 1992 Evaluating Lead Isotope Data [comments on Sayre, Yener, Joel and Barnes (1992)] III. Archaeometry 34: 322–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pernicka, E. 1993 Comments [on Budd et al. (1993a)] III. Archaeometry 35: 259–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raftery, B. 1994 Pagan Celtic Ireland: the Enigma of the Irish Iron Age. Thames & Hudson, London.Google Scholar
Read, D. 1985 The Substance of Archaeological Analysis and the Mold of Statistical Analysis: Enlightenment out of Discord. In For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis, edited by Carr, C., pp. 45–86. Westport Press, Kansas City, Missouri.Google Scholar
Read, D. 1987 Archaeological Theory and Statistical Methods: Discordance, Resolution, and New Directions. In Quantitative Research in Archaeology, edited by Aldenderfer, M., pp. 151–184. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
Reedy, T. J., and Reedy, C. L. 1992 Evaluating Lead Isotope Data [comments on Sayre, Yener, Joel and Barnes 1992] IV. Arcliaeometry 34: 327–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C, and Bahn, P. 1991 Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. Thames & Hudson, London.Google Scholar
Sayre, E. V, Yener, K. A., and Joel, E. C. 1992 Evaluating Lead Isotope Data [comments on Sayre, Yener, Joel and Barnes 1992]: Reply. Archaeometry 34: 330–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayre, E. V, Yener, K. A., and Joel, E. C. 1993 Comments [on Budd et al. (1993a)] I. Archaeometry 35: 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayre, E. V, Yener, K. A., Joel, E. C., and Barnes, I. L. 1992 Statistical Examination of the Presently Accumulated Lead Isotope Data from Anatolia and Surrounding Regions. Archaeometry 34: 73–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar