西南考古的现状与问题——代《南方文物》"西南考古"专栏主持辞

中国的西南地区,在自然地理上是指四川盆地、云贵高原和青藏高原三大地理单元．在行政区划上则主要包括了四川、云南、贵州、西藏四省区。这里是世界的屋脊,是中国长江、黄河和珠江三大河流发源的地方,是贯穿中国的半月形化传播带经过的地方。西南地区的腹地也就是青藏高原东麓地区（包括藏东南、川西高原和滇西高原）,被称作中国西南山地热点地区。该地区东为海拔很低的四川盆地,西邻高耸的青藏高原,从海拔几百米的河谷到六七千米的山脉交替出现。复杂的地理环境和气候条件造就了这里独特的生物多样性、民族多样性和化多样性。就生物的多样性而言,这里从热带亚热带动植物、温带动植物到高寒地区动植物一应俱全。     

聚落考古在中国——历程·现状·问题

本文对聚落考古学在中国的发展历程和现状进行了细致的梳理与理性的分析,指出了现今聚落考古实践中所存在的问题.作者将以往田野考古中进行的聚落考古实践分为全面揭露一处遗址、区域考古调查、区域考古调查与全面揭露及多学科结合三种形式,并对如何进行聚落实践提出了自己的观点.     

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.     

国外公共考古学研究现状综述

公共考古学的概念自20世纪70年代提出以来,"公共"(Public)一词的含义一直都是公共考古学研究的核心问题。"公共"蕴含着国家和公众两个不同的维度,根据"公共"一词包含的不同价值取向,国外公共考古学的研究经历了政府参与、公众参与、公众导向等三个不同的阶段,这对中国公共考古学的定位于"面向公众的考古学"提供了理论支撑。     

An Overview of Alaskan Late Pleistocene Archaeology: Historical Themes and Current Perspectives

Alaska has long held an important role in the late Pleistocene prehistory of the New World. Alaska being situated at the juncture between the Old and New Worlds, scholars have long looked to the Alaskan archaeological record to provide clues into the initial peopling of the New World. As such, Alaska figures prominently in most models of the peopling of the New World. In recent years, however, it has become clear that the late Pleistocene archaeological record of Alaska is characterized by great technological and adaptive diversity, and no single interpretive model can adequately explain that diversity. This paper traces the development of Pleistocene Alaskan archaeology by outlining the history of site discoveries and interpretations. In so doing, it provides a historical perspective on current frameworks of Alaskan Pleistocene prehistory. Based primarily on a search for the first inhabitants of the New World, however, the research questions traditionally guiding Alaskan archaeology have tended to complicate rather than clarify the picture. In some cases, this has led to false expectations and oftentimes contradictory interpretations, many of which still persist, and which can only be resolved by addressing the Alaskan record on its own terms.     

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.     

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.     

Near-Infrared Aerial Crop Mark Archaeology: From its Historical Use to Current Digital Implementations

Even though most archaeologists are aware of the crop mark phenomenon and its possible archaeological nature, the information on its occurrence and specific character is, in most cases, obtained by imaging in the visible spectrum. After the Second World War, the occasional use of near-infrared (NIR) sensitive emulsions attributed this kind of invisible imaging with a great potential. However, archaeological NIR imaging always remained restricted due to several reasons not, at least, its complicated workflow and uncertain results. This article wants to delve deeper into the subject, looking at the conventional film-based approach of NIR aerial reconnaissance and its historical use in archaeological crop mark research, after which a current straightforward digital approach will be outlined. By explaining the spectral properties of plants and using examples of recently acquired NIR imagery in comparison with visible frames, it should become clear why the detection and interpretation of crop marks can benefit from low-cost digital NIR imaging in certain situations.     

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.     

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, History, and Historical Archaeology in South America

This paper discusses the relationship between history and archaeology in general, their common concerns and links with historical archaeology. It deals with the development of historical archaeology in three related South American countries, Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay, and pays attention to recent trends in the theory and practice of the discipline in the area.     

Archaeology from below

Abstract

This paper identifies and discusses two contrasting approaches to field archaeology in contemporary Britain. The dominant approach is that of ‘official archaeology’ rooted in professional rescue (or contract) work and represented by bodies such as English Heritage, county archaeology units and the Institute of Field Archaeologists. This ‘archaeology from above’ threatens alternative approaches to fieldwork, since state legislation and other bureaucratic controls are being used to restrict access to archaeology to an elite of self-accredited practitioners, and a persuasive and sophisticated ideology of heritage ‘protection’ and professional ‘standards’ is being deployed to legitimize this policy. This attempt to universalize the practices of professional rescue archaeology is academically incoherent and politically undemocratic. An alternative ‘archaeology from below’ is proposed in which fieldwork is rooted in the community, open to volunteer contributions, organised in a non-exclusive, non-hierarchical way, and dedicated to a research agenda in which material, methods and interpretation are allowed to interact. These points are illustrated with detailed references to the experience of ‘democratic archaeology’ on the author's project at Sedgeford in northwest Norfolk in 1996–98.     

Archaeology without Boundaries

Authors in this issue give examples of archaeologists learning to see the socio-political and economic frames of their research and show how we can begin to expand the limits of our comprehension of heritage.

---

Resumen En esta edición los autores proporcionan ejemplos de arqueólogos que aprenden a ver los marcos sociopolíticos y económicos de su investigación y muestran como podemos empezar a ampliar los límites de nuestra comprensión del patrimonio.

---

Résumé Les auteurs de ce numéro donnent des exemples d’archéologues qui apprennent à percevoir les cadres sociopolitique et économique de leur recherche et montrent comment on peut élargir les limites de notre compréhension du patrimoine.