Journal of Archaeology and Text, 1, 2017, 67-94.

http://dilemaveche.ro/sectiune/tilc-show/articol/exercitii-neutralitate  

“Those whom the gods hate ...” they make publish another archaeologist’s excava-tions. In this volume, H.-P. Kuhnen bravely runs the gauntlet of editing and publishing, with commentary, the manuscripts of W. Reusch on the half-century-old, large-scale and long-term excavations beneath the imperial baths (Kaiserthermen) of Trier. This, by itself, would be a great service to the academic community, but Kuhnen adds his own coher-ent interpretation

In the present article I attempt to apply advances in the study of instrumental and epistemic rationality to field archaeology in order to gain insights into the ways archaeologists reason. The cognitive processes, particularly processes of decision making, that enable archaeologists to conduct the excavation in the trench have not been adequately studied so far. I take my cues from two different bodies of theory. I first inquire into the potential

This article emerges out of a discussion within the team in Troy in response to recent developments in the practice and theory of recording archaeological excavations, as well as in the technology that makes them possible. Methodological awareness must be fostered by analytical concerns and its results offered for public scrutiny; any recording system is thus re-cast as the encapsulation of this methodological awareness. Before thoroughly modernizing

This article attempts to create a methodological framework for the investigation of a large sample of prehistoric cemeteries in order to evaluate a possible correlation between atypical burials and skeleton palaeopathology and the reconstruction of social attitudes towards individuals with impairments in prehistoric societies. Various statistics suggest that impairments affect 10-12% of the world population today, and this percentage must also have

This article concerns the contribution Anatolian archaeology can make to Homeric studies. It consists of three parts. The first part presents the prerequisites for such a discussion, namely Troy's identification with Hisarlik (I.1), the date and historicity of Homer (I.2), and the relationship between Homer and Aegean archaeology (1.3), and between Homer and Near Eastern archaeology (1.4). It concludes with a description of the Anatolian influences