Archaeology in Gabon, 1886–1988

This is the first attempt at synthesis of archaeological research conducted in Gabon between 1982 and 1988. Middle Stone Age, Late Stone Age, Neolithic, Early and Late Iron Age data are discussed in the context of earlier discoveries and of current research in Central Africa as a whole.Though the Middle Stone Age remains undated, its earliest component clearly preceded 40,000 bp. The Late Stone Age is datedca 9000–2500 bp, with an early Neolithic perhaps as old as 5000–3000 bp. A late Neolithic is firmly dated to 2600–2200 bp. Iron smelting is shown to have begunca 2500 bp in inland areas of Gabon andca 2000 bp near the coast.

---

Résumé On présente ici une première synthèse des données scientifiques obtenues au cours des travaux de 1982–1988 au Gabon. Les éléments relatifs au Middle Stone Age, au Late Stone Age, au Néolithique, aux Ages du Fer ancien et récent sont présentés. A chaque fois une discussion s'engage les mettant en relation avec le contexte global de l'Afrique Centrale ainsi qu'avec les découvertes antérieures.Quoique le MSA reste mal daté, il peut être démontré que les plus vieux outils ont au moins 40,000 ans d'âge. Le LSA quant à lui est circonscrit à la périodeca 9000–2500 bp, alors qu'un Néolithique ancien est peut-être situé vers 5000–3000 bp. Un Néolithique final est, lui, correctement daté vers 2600–2200 bp. Enfin, la fonte du fer est attestée à l'intérieur des terres dès 2500 bp alors que le littoral ne semble pas connaitre cette technologie avant 2000 bp.

     

The Archaeology of Copán, Honduras

Copán, a major Classic Maya center in western Honduras, has been the focus of archaeological investigation for over a century. An intense period of research since 1975, involving projects and scholars from many institutions, has resulted in a comprehensive understanding of the origin, maturation, and decline of this major Maya polity.     

Archaeology advances?

Michael B. Schiffer, ed. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, New York: Academic Press, 1981, 1982, 1983. Vol. IV, xii + 443 pp., $38.00; Vol. V, xiii + 478 pp., $42.00; Vol. VI, xiii + 359 pp., $37.50; Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory: Selections for Students from Volumes 1 through 4, New York: Academic Press, 1982, xiv + 690 pp., $19.95     

The Research Laboratory for Conservation and Archaeology, Shanghai Meseum

Thelaboratorywasfoundedin1960.Asaresearchinstituteforscientificconservation.itisthefirstoneestablishedinChina.Intherecent30years,ithasdevelopedintoaspecializedagencyinthesciencesofconservationandarchaeology,andactedasaShanghaiTestCenterof相似文献   

Is Archaeology Developmental?

Archéologie et développement semblent deux notions fort éloignées l'une de l'autre. La première évoque une recherche fondamentale, pure alors que la deuxième parle de santé, économie, éducation, agriculture, pêche, équipement, transports, communications, etc. . . Et pourtant elles se rejoignent dans le bien-être aussi bien matériel que culturel qu'elles sont supposées apporter aux peuples auxquels elles s'adressent. En effet, si elles introduisent, importent des connaissances, des savoirs des techniques et des machines permettant de mieux maîtriser le monde, nourrir et élever les peuples, ces connaissances interfèrent avec la façon dont ceux-ci vivent et ceci depuis longtemps, la façon dont ceux-ci pensent leurs vies et le monde: philosophies, religions, histoires et coutumes dont on pense se débarrasser en les considérant fausses ou irrationnelles. Ainsi apprend-on que laTerre est ronde et tourne autour du soleil, que nous sommes faits de particules, et qu'il faut s'incliner devant les lois de l'évolution. La Science nous a appris et nous apprend toujours la Vérité sur le monde qui nous entoure bien qu'elle ait donné les moyens intellectuels et matériels aux plus grands massacres que l'Histoire ait connus et bien qu'il ne se passe pas de mois sans catastrophes climatiques, industrielles, politiques ou culturelles ou sans sinistres prévisions, comme le nivellement du mondialisme! Ainsi un des problèmes centraux du développement, illustré ici par une réflexion historico-archéologique, réside dans le dialogue (ou son absence) entre ces deux domaines de connaissance: le scientifique, le moderne et l'autochtone, l'ethnique, le non-moderne. Si l'on veut que ce développement concerne la majorité de chaque peuple impliqué, il est de la plus haute importance de s'interroger sur les modalités des échanges et choix de savoirs, leur équilibre et les raisons profondes des désaccords planétaires à ce sujet. Sous cette condition, le Développement deviendra vraiment démocratique.Archaeology and development seem widely separated notions. The former evokes fundamental pure research whereas the latter talks about health, economics, education, agriculture, fishery, equipment, transports, communications, and so on. Nevertheless both focus on the well-being as well material as cultural which they are supposed to bring to people. In fact if they input and import knowledge, technologies and machineries allowing a better mastering of the world, together with feeding and educating people, both development and archaeology interfere with the ways in which people live and many of the things they believe: philosophies, religions, histories, and customs that become defined as false or irrational. Thus we are taught that the Earth is round and revolves around the sun, that we are made of particles, and that we have to bow in front of the laws of evolution. Science taught us Truth and still does, a truth that provided the intellectual and material means for the worst massacres of history. Thus one of the central problems of development, herein illustrated by a historico-archaeological reflection, lies in dialogue (or its absence) between these two knowledge domains: the scientific, modern and the autochtonous, ethnic, nonmodern. If development projects are to benefit all, it is of the utmost importance to wonder about the exchanges and choices of knowledge, their balance, and the deep meanings of globalization. Under such conditions, development will become really democratic.     

Personalities and Institutions in Americanist Archaeology, 1850–1950

Between 1850 and 1950 Americanist archaeology evolved from an inchoate blend of antiquarianism, literature, and field digging undertaken by untrained but enthusiastic amateurs into an increasingly disciplined and institutionalized field of inquiry. While personal speculation and style became less pronounced, institutional (university/museum) support provided financial grounds for long-term research and teaching agendas. At the same time, while institutionalized archaeology certainly did not eliminate strong personality differences and professional disagreements, it did provide channels within which to confront and resolve them. The overlapping generations of Ephraim Squier, Alfred Maudslay, and Byron Cummings clearly demonstrate this trajectory of professionalization.     

Seven Interventions with the Flatlands: Archaeology and its Modes of Engagement Contributions from the WAC-6 Session, “Experience, Modes of Engagement, Archaeology”

This volume is the product of the WAC-6 session, “Experience, Modes of Engagement, Archaeology”, which was part of the conference theme, “Archaeological Theory? Legacies, Burdens, and Futures.” The following contributions embrace emergent, analog, and paper-based media and move on from the worn observation that these media can be important tools towards active interventions that demonstrate how they affect practice and theory when employed critically and reflexively. This introduction orients the focus of the volume through a discussion and case study that place theoretical emphasis on experiences documented through multimedia. Important questions are raised throughout concerning: archaeology and digital representation, the creation and destruction of archaeological information, authenticity in representations, the construction of archaeologists’ identities, and the non-linearity of archaeological practice. The studies in this volume approach archaeology through the lens of experience and multimedia engagement. In doing so they blend or altogether question the traditionally divided realms of theory and practice. Consequently, these contributions work with the interrelated agendas of the present between media ecologies and archaeology, and the changing pace and character of archaeology in the 21st century.     

Community Archaeology: A Threat or an Opportunity for Greek Archaeology?

The development of archaeology in Greece has been determined by the central role classical antiquity played in the European and Greek imagination. Classical archaeology, with its aesthetic view of the material culture, has dominated the discipline and its popular perception ever since. The state has been entrusted with the exclusive authority on archaeological heritage because of its national importance. This paper argues that the combination of the classical and state monopoly has led to the isolation of Greek archaeology from the world and from the Greek people. The aim is to critically assess Greek archaeology and introduce community archaeology as a means to make archaeology relevant to the Greek people.     

An Archaeology of Community Life: Appalachia, 1865–1920

Archaeology has the potential to contribute significant information about community building in the lives of former enslaved laborers. In this article, I consider the role of race and racism in the creation, maintenance and material manifestation of community in post-emancipation Appalachia.     

The Navajo Nation, Din�� Archaeologists, Din�� Archaeology, and Din�� Communities

There are several major considerations for the Navajo Nation that foreground questions of inclusion in public archaeology. The traditional Diné view of archaeological remains requires an evaluation of the public archaeologist’s notion of inclusion of Diné communities in archaeological research. Archaeological work on the Navajo Nation is also often a source of frustration for Diné communities because a shortage of human and monetary resources slows the pace of legislated archaeological compliance, in turn, slowing down vital housing and road infrastructural development. Finally, for Diné archaeologists, the structure of project development is not necessarily conducive to the creation of an intellectual foundation for Diné archaeology or community engagement in archaeological research.     

Tracing the Roots of Municipal Archaeology in St Augustine,Florida: The Story of How ‘The Oldest City’ Connected Archaeology,Local Government,and the Public

Abstract

This article explores the history of public archaeology in St Augustine, Florida, and identi?es lessons that may be useful for archaeologists looking to develop a stronger relationship with the public. The City of St Augustine has developed an archaeology ordinance, it keeps an archaeologist on staff, and it boasts a grassroots non-pro?t organization dedicated to supporting archaeology in the city. This framework is the result of a conversation that has been taking place within the community since the 1930s. As public archaeologists seek new ways of establishing long-term relationships with community groups, this exceptional programme, which only exists because of community support, provides insights into how to build those relationships on a solid foundation.     

Landscapes, Houses, Bodies, Things: “Place” and the Archaeology of Inuit Imaginaries

Although the dichotomization of space and place has spawned a lively archaeological discussion, it threatens to devolve into a troublesome binary like sex/gender. Local place-making and universalizing spatial science are not so neatly segregated. Rather than dividing and bounding the notion of an investment of locations with meaning, it can be extended to describe the intricate topologies of bodies and things, as well as landscapes. Places emerge as sites of the hybrid articulation of representations, practices, and things, as spatialized imaginaries. The notion of imaginaries and the rethinking of place are illustrated with Inuit archaeological and ethnographic examples.     

More than Meets the Eyes?: Archaeology Under Water,Technology, and Interpretation

Abstract

Archaeology has had a long and interesting relationship with technology. Technology has arguably allowed us to move from antiquarian interest to the robust academic institution that we now are. The importance that technology plays within archaeology is perhaps best exemplified within the increasingly popular/populist 'sub-discipline' of underwater archaeology. After all, contemporary underwater archaeology could not exist if it was not for the invention SCUBA. Alongside the 'day-to-day' use of technology there is also a rush to latch on contemporary technologies within the sub-discipline. The reasons for this are examined within this work, however, what is argued to be more important is the implications this has had on our discipline.

This paper examines these implications on and as part of underwater archaeology. The impact of its use on interpretive thinking within the sub-discipline are analyzed by assessing the very nature of theoretical thinking within our work. This paper raises the difficult and perhaps controversial question — are underwater archaeologists merely substituting technology for theory and as such offering, admittedly impressive, complex and sound scientific computer models as interpretation, rather than the data that they really are?     

‘History meets Archaeology: St Helen’s Chapel,Malham, Revisited’ *

Documentary evidence describes how in 1549, during the suppression of the chantries under Edward VI, the medieval chapel in Malham township was destroyed. Combining this evidence with aerial photographs and geophysical surveys, a potential site for the ancient chapel and cemetery was identified. Between 2015-2017 archaeological excavations confirmed that this site was the ancient chapel. The notes update the original article about Malham chapel in Northern History, 52 (2015), which was written before the excavations began.     

An International Scottish Historical Archaeology?

This paper serves as an introduction to the special edition of the International Journal of Historical Archaeology on the theme of Scottish historical archaeology in its international context. The introduction aims to provide a context for the individual papers in the collection by briefly outlining some of the main characteristics of Scottish historical archaeology—as it has developed in the past, as it is at present and as it might develop in the future. The paper also discusses the ambiguous relationship between Scottish historical archaeology and wider historical archaeology.     

The center and the edge: Archaeology in Belize, 1809–1992

The archaeological history of Belize now spans, in a sense, 183 years. For all but the past quarter-century of that time, research in the country has ranged from sporadic to nonexistent. In recent years, however, forces both internal and external to Belize have brought about an explosion of fieldwork and reporting, as well as wide-ranging analyses, problem-focused studies, and the beginnings of placement of Belize in a theoretical frame. Review of the development of archaeological research in the country establishes a base on which to rest discussion of themes in current work, as well as the impact of Belizean data as regards changes in our assessment of Maya prehistory as a whole.