This article is based on 2 observations. First, I note the quality of certain traditional archaeological studies, focusing on evaluation of results obtained and of information used. Second, I observe the incoherence of many of the constructions of "analytical" archaeologists, who sometimes naively imagine that it is possible to substitute sophisticated algorithms for analysis of the logic and archaeological meaning of problems in prehistory.
The goal of this work is twofold: (1) to set up a model for analysis of traditional archaeological works that resolves the linguistic and logical difficulties encountered during extraction of the information they contain; and (2) to give an example of the way in which "description" and "calculation" may be integrated into a logical analytical scheme, so that the problem of "interpretation" (that is, of proceeding from formalisms to meaning) is resolved without reproducing the shortcomings of traditional discourse. These shortcomings include a preponderance of personal intuition, an absence of explicit justifications, and numerous incoherences.
This paper is meant to be a contribution to efforts to reestablish the bases of archaeological reasoning in their historical continuity, beyond the mechanistic oppositions tending to mask the dialectic between "new" and "traditional" archaeology.
The paper is translated from its original French by Claudine Farrand.