David and Hazael: War,Peace, Stones and Memory

Abstract

This paper reexamines the rise and fall of two regional empires: the Israelite kingdom of David and Solomon, and the Aramaic kingdom of Hazael and his son Bar-Hadad III. The author presents a comparison between these two regional empires, discussing the following main points: the rise to power of the founders: David and Hazael and their charismatic character; their wars and peace treaties; the boundaries and the administrative organization of these two empires, and the decline and fall of the kingdoms in the days of the founder's sons: Solomon and Bar-Hadad III. The author is of the opinion that the existence of a regional empire in the days of Hazael and his son is of great significance for the reality of the empire of David and Solomon, since the former clearly proves that in certain geopolitical circumstances the making of a regional empire that controlled most of the area between the Euphrates and Philistia was entirely possible. The phenomenon of the Aramaean regional empire of Hazael and his son does not prove the existence of an Israelite regional empire, but it indicates that the biblical account of the rise and fall of an Israelite empire in the days of David and Solomon was possible, and even reasonable.     

Native Providence: Memory,Community, and Survivance in the Northeast

Historical Archaeology -     

Correction: Native Providence: Memory,Community, and Survivance in the Northeast

Historical Archaeology -     

Mongolian Deer Stones,European Menhirs,and Canadian Arctic Inuksuit: Collective Memory and the Function of Northern Monument Traditions

Northern peoples and those living in the Arctic and environments with broad vistas created cultural landscapes with distinctive monument traditions that supported their cultural and political systems. This paper explores three societies in different geographic regions and time periods during the past 10,000 years that used stone monuments to humanize their landscapes and invoke or honor gods or spirits, mythological ancestors, or deceased leaders. Canadian and Greenland Inuit and their predecessors of the past thousand years marked their lands with abstract human figures known as Inuksuit; Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans built megaliths, henges, and passage graves; and Mongolian Bronze Age nomadic pastoralists populated the central Asian steppe with burial mounds (khirigsuurs) and anthropomorphic deer stone monuments. Each tradition contributed in different ways to shape and perpetuate the society’s values by invoking spirits, ancestors, or heroic leaders. The enduring presence of these creations reinforced cultural or ethnic identity through ritual, group ceremonialism, landscape values, communal enterprise and labor, and collective memory. This paper identifies commonalities and differences between these traditions and how they functioned. We also see how successive societies perpetuate, change, reinterpret, or invent new uses and meanings for ancient monuments and their landscape settings to create new ethnicities and histories for their own times.     

Memory and Memorial: A Study of Official and Military Commemoration of the Dead,and Family and Community Memory in Essex and East London

Abstract

This article looks at the history and development of the ways in which the people of Essex and East London have, at all levels, commemorated those who served and died in the First World War. It covers a wide range of material to investigate social and political responses to the War Memorial. It examines personal and communal memorialising and acts of remembrance in the past and present. Next, official and military forms of commemoration are considered, including those of the local councils and the Essex Regiment and other associated groups. The issue of the community in commemoration is examined in depth. It provides evidence from a large number of differing sites. Finally, reflections on the validity of this study, and the broader implications for archaeology and society as a whole are discussed.     

Current Realities,Idealised Pasts: Archaeology,Values and Indigenous Heritage Management in Central Australia

This paper addresses the inter‐cultural meanings and assumptions which have arisen in the interpretation of heritage and its conservation in central Australia. Conflicting views of heritage conservation are grounded in particular constructions of the past which are adapted and redefined in relation to the present. In central Australia, Indigenous notions of time and property have stressed the symbolic value of objects in terms of the Dreaming and their active role in exchange. The definition of objects as personal effects and their enhancement of social values through exchange have been at odds with archaeological understandings of the same objects as artefacts and attempts to conserve them as items of heritage significance. Specific examples discussed include the use of artefacts in economic exchanges, interpretation of archaeological sequences, and the application of concepts of significance through land rights and heritage legislation.     

龙船:社区共同体的历史记忆——苍南县江南垟杨府爷信仰中的"船祭"仪式调查

一、划太平龙习俗中的神灵与祖灵浙江省东南端的苍南县是一个滨海大县,其自然地理区域江南垟有面积300多平方公里,人口60来万。江南垟的西北部云岩乡鲸头村有一座信众广布浙南闽东的杨府庙,该庙附近乡村每年春节至元宵之间都要举行划太平龙仪式,信众也习惯将大量的竹扎纸船烧给杨府庙的神灵杨府爷,称为"还愿"。太平龙即"太平龙船"的简称,所以用"划",整个活动是为了祈祷地方太平,称"吉庆太平龙"。     

Teaching Archaeological Pasts in South Africa: Historical and Contemporary Considerations of Archaeological Education

This paper discusses the history and trending of archaeological education in South Africa, a set of frameworks wherein primary and secondary level students instrumentalize archaeology to investigate and debate their pasts. Archaeological education has existed thus far as a conversation among archaeologists and a footnote in the national curriculum. I present the first cohesive treatment of these projects. I examine attendant conflicts and obstacles, drawn partly from my involvement in two South African projects but illustrating issues that I believe have global resonance. I submit that archaeological education entails engagements that hold serious ramifications for archaeological ethics, practice, and epistemology.