The Archaeology of Poverty and the Poverty of Archaeology

In this Editor’s Introduction to this Special Contribution, I explore some central issues surrounding the archaeology of poverty and ponder why it has taken historical archaeologists so long to “discover” poverty as a research topic.     

Archaeology on the Western Front: the Archaeology of Popular Myths

Abstract

The Sámi of today (the Lapps of yesteryear), currently divided from each other by the national boundaries of Finland, Norway, Russia and Sweden, have been, at least in part, ‘defined’ in the past by archaeology and its practices. In creating and modifying identities believedto be appropriate to the 21^st century, the Sámi facemany problems similar to other ‘indigenous’ and minority groups in the world. These include struggles to repatriate human remains and objects of material culture, others concern the use of the archaeological evidence to determine longevity of tradition and land rights, and still others demonstrate the role of heritage in the definitions of ethnicity and even in tourist presentations of what the Sámi might become, or might have been, or currently are.     

Maroon Archaeology Is Public Archaeology

Researchers of the contemporary past have sought to be instrumental in public dialogue about how artifacts speak to heritage matters relevant to living communities and decision-making polities (Emberling and Hanson, Catastophe!: the looting and destruction of Iraq’s past, 2008; Gibbon, Who owns the past?: cultural policy, cultural property, and the law, 2005; Mullins, Places in mind: public archaeology as applied anthropology, 2004; Renfrew, Loot, legitimacy and ownership: the ethical crisis in archaeology, 2000; Skeates, Debating the archaeological heritage, 2000). This approach has made archaeology a public endeavor that serves the needs of inquisitive researchers, as well as those groups of individuals whose lives may be directly affected by the excavation, analysis, and interpretation of archaeological remains. This paper will broadly assess how the archaeology of Maroons—tribal communities of runaway slave descendants—has affected the application of scholarly research in the former Dutch territory of Suriname, SA. The shift in relevance is due to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights 2007 judgment that allows Suriname Maroons to assert decision-making authority on matters of land management and development in ancestral and contemporary habitat. Vital to this endeavor is, Maroon involvement in archaeological research and more importantly, an overhaul in Surinamese antiquity laws.     

《中国考古学年鉴》的特色及其在考古学科发展中的作用

本文比较详细地介绍了《中国考古学年鉴》的特色及其在考古科研工作中所起的作用。     

唐陵大遗址考古的思路与方法——2007～2008年度中国田野考古一等奖获奖项目介绍

<正>陕西唐陵大遗址保护项目的考古工作荣获2007～2008年度全国田野考古一等奖。这是国家文物局和考古学界对我们工作成绩的肯定与鼓励,也是我院田野考古工作者开拓创新、辛勤工作的结果。以下将唐陵考古工作中的思路、方法、措施以及得失作以介绍,以期得到考古界同仁的指教。     

Historical Archaeology as Modern-World Archaeology in Argentina

Historical archaeology has grown at a remarkable pace in the last decade. South America has seen a major growth in historical archaeology, with archaeologists in Argentina playing a large role in the maturation of the discipline on the continent. Much of this archaeology can be characterized as “modern-world archaeology” because of the archaeologists’ interest in issues relevant to post-Columbian cultural history.     

The Archaeology of the Disenfranchised

The question of multivocality has been much explored and debated in recent archaeological publications. Clearly, the objective of such work is to assure the inclusion of the views of disadvantaged minorities and disenfranchised peoples in the presentation of their own pasts. This objective has not been achieved with much success, however, partly because mainstream archaeologists have had some difficulties in grappling with what appear to be a proliferation of alternative archaeological theories. Few discussions have approached alternative archaeologies as constituting a definable archaeological paradigm that might be termed The Archaeology of the Disenfranchised. Four different models within this paradigm are discussed and a strategy for a more widespread inclusion of alternative archaeological discussions and projects is suggested.     

"文明探源:考古与历史的整合"学术研讨会综述

2005年11月23-25日,由河南博物院联合中国社会科学院古代文明研究中心、河南省文物考古研究所共同举办了“文明探源:考古与历史的整合”学术研讨会。为了充分反映这次会议的学术成果,《中原文物》特辟“文明探源”栏目,从2006年第1期起将陆续刊登大会论文。同时也希望有更多的专家学者参与讨论并惠赐佳作,以期推动中国古代文明起源的研究。     

Memory as Archaeology: An Experience of Public Archaeology in the Atacama Desert

Conducting archaeological projects in areas inhabited by Indigenous Communities who dislike both excavations and archaeologists leads to an ethical conundrum, one requiring a reconsideration of the research methodologies utilized in these settings, and a turn toward Public Archaeology as a means to find alternative pathways. This article describes a research project conducted in the Indigenous Atacameño Community of Peine, in the Atacama Desert, Chile, where, through a principal methodology of Participatory Action Research, it became possible to explore the past of this community in ways that were both meaningful and valid for its members. The results drawn from this experience differ markedly from traditional archaeological approaches (i.e. excavations, analysis of material culture), both in terms of the nature of the knowledge recovered and the temporal depth achieved. In this particular instance, collective remembrance and embodied memory featured prominently in accounting for the past of Peine.     

Un-Disciplining Archaeology

We can think of a kind of archaeological colonialism in terms of the exportation of metropolitan theories and/or methodologies to peripheral countries/regions, or in the way metropolitan academic institutions/archaeologists conduct archaeology in peripheral countries/regions. But even if we manage to stop those kinds of colonial bonds, archaeology would remain being an imperial weapon. And, moreover, it can be said that colonialism is not dependant on the overseas provenance of archaeologies and/or theories. Beyond theoretical and methodological variability, it is archaeology itself what happens to recapitulate colonialist relationships; and this seems to happen even when archaeology is openly and deliberately oriented towards indigenous peoples?? empowerment, social justice, and peace. It seems that theoretical and methodological paradigms and political intentions operate at a surface level, while colonialism is equipped with stronger streams operating below the floor where archaeologists stand. What is there below our feet, making us move in one direction even when we walk in the other? Neither being the theories, neither the methods, nor the political intentions and nationality, what is that hidden force that govern the sense of archaeology in the contemporary post-colonial world? My argument is that the hidden force it is not hidden at all, but remains unseen because it is too obvious. The disciplinary framework of archaeology itself -that is, its basic subject matter and method??beyond the theoretical and methodological paradigms and the political orientation in which we aim to proceed, or our nationality or whatever, recapitulates coloniality. Without implying that theoretical and methodological debate within archaeological discipline is in vain, I dedicate this piece to write not within, but about the discipline. In short, this will include talking about disciplining, its recapitulation in post-disciplinary contexts, and the implied proposal of un-disciplining archaeology.     

Linguistic Archaeology

This chapter addresses the essential issues in evaluating works that use linguistic evidence in reconstructing the past. Linguistics has its own well-developed body of theory and practice. Its evidence is subject to rigorous validation. Any work claiming to infer history from linguistics must validate its evidence against a systematic phonological reconstruction, and it must provide that validating apparatus or else direct the reader to where that apparatus is to be found. Scholars do not get to pick and choose among the archaeological data to support their ideas. Neither does one get to pick and choose or to engage in special pleading to make the linguistic evidence fit one’s prior notions. The chapter illustrates the requirements of linguistic reconstruction by laying out the system of the Eastern Cushitic language group and showing how to apply the system, step by step, to reconstruct the presence of a particular component of the proto-Eastern Cushitic economy.     

Archaeology in the Graduate School

Abstract

The Graduate Center for Ancient Studies was established at the University of Minnesota in 1973. Archaeology as an interdisciplinary study plays a major role in the program. This article discusses the rationale and the operation of the Center.     

民族考古学是什么

本从学科分类、研究对象、研究方法、边缘学科、研究成果等五个方面分析后认为“民族考古学”不是考古学的分支学科,而是考古学的一种阐释方法论。     

Refiguring the Archaeology of Greater Cahokia

Revised theoretical constructs and an enlarged database allow substantive revisions to a processual accounting of greater Cahokia. Measures of political consolidation, demographic nucleation, central transformations, and centrifugal dispersions reveal the form, scale, and developmental trajectory of greater Cahokia to have been highly centralized, regional, and punctuated by abrupt and pervasive social changes, respectively. Social restructuring, political rituals, and large-scale labor mobilizations are recognizable among the archaeological remains, as are the pre-Mississippian traditions that tempered regional government. Greater Cahokia was a product of local agricultural populations dominated and accommodated over three centuries. The processes of domination and accommodation, occurring at a time when regional administration was not yet commonplace, left unmistakable regional and panregional signatures.