This article intends to explore the theoretical dimensions of backdirt in archaeology. Often ignored and viewed as mere refuse material of archaeological practices, these by-products of excavation lie in the shadow of literature and reports, always present and yet invisible. The goal of the following text is to establish a distinct perspective on backdirt, on its relation with data, and on its capacity to offer renewability of interpretations in epistemic terms. By exploring its theoretical implications and situating it as a historically everchanging concept, backdirt can both shed light on how the materialities of the past have been intervened in before archaeology as well as to become the driving force for a meta-critique in archaeology, a way for archaeologists to study themselves.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Daniel Carvalho (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: