Deep Impact: What Happens When Archaeological Sites are Built on?

Abstract

Increasingly, developers and archaeologists search for ways to build on archaeological sites, while at the same time preserving the remains underneath. However, deciding which effects of construction on archaeological sites are acceptable and which are not is hampered by the lack of knowledge on the impacts of construction on archaeological sites. This paper provides an update on some of the effects of building on archaeological sites. Recent research had shown that displacement piles cause less disturbance in soft soils than previously thought. Moreover, replacement piles may be less benign that assumed up till now. Effects of loading on archaeological sites are described, and gaps in the knowledge on these effects are indicated. More research is needed in this field, especially on predicting soil disturbance and damage to weak materials. Impermeable surfaces and constructions on top of sites may affect the visibility of soil features due to decreased rainwater infiltration. Finally, a series of non-physical effects are mentioned that will have to be taken into account when deciding on allowing building on archaeological sites.     

A Happening at Danebury Hillfort – But When?

A group of six radiocarbon dates for human skeletons found at the Iron Age hillfort of Danebury are suggestive of a major killing event. We consider here how the dates, mitigated by a careful consideration of the archaeological evidence for context, can be used in constructing site history.     

A Moldovan ‘sheep'? – framing Moldovan passivity

This article offers a different perspective for understanding Moldovan discourses of passivity by turning its attention to representations of national identity. Its main focus is a Moldovan ballad, Miori?a, and the way in which it discursively both frames and legitimises inaction. It builds on the idea that Miori?a is a central part of the way in which Moldovans represent their identity with respect to the writings of Ion Dru??, its main promoter in Moldovan society. More importantly, the ballad is conceptually linked to national characteristics such as lamentation and kindness, characteristics that can be summed up under the headline of ‘passivity’. Thus, drawing from constructivist and post‐structuralist approaches, the article stresses how these elements inform the Moldovan view of the self, its identity and even its representations of foreign affairs, framing the Moldovan lack of agency on a discursive level.     

Two medieval ‘trepanations’ – therapy or swindle?

During the 1991–1992 excavation of the ruins of the medieval cathedral in Hamar, Norway, the broken skull of an elderly man was found, showing evidence of an incomplete trepanation. The ‘surgeon’ had obviously tried to penetrate the skull surface around bregma in an irregular circle of 23 × 21 mm. Upon investigation, the skull revealed a reactive‐pathological area of the internal surface of the occipital bone, which probably represents a respite after a meningeal disorder (a tumour or an infectious process), causing us to suggest that the trepanation was meant to cure the patient's increasing headache. However, as a second skull with similar marks was found in the same churchyard, another explanation seems possible. Because the brain tumour in the first case may have altered the patient's mental state, we may surmise that these incomplete operations were an attempt to remove from these patients' heads the ‘Stone of Madness’, which was then commonly considered to be the reason for psychiatric diagnoses as well as persistent headache, and often depicted in European art, most notably in the 16^th and 17^th centuries. The second skull, revealing an even more incomplete attempt, did not show any skeletal pathology at all. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Misunderstanding the Question: ‘What is Enlightenment?’: Venturi, Habermas, and Foucault

In his 1969 Trevelyan Lectures, Franco Venturi argued that Kant's response to the question “What is Enlightenment?” has tended to promote a “philosophical interpretation” of the Enlightenment that leads scholars away from the political questions that were central to its concerns. But while Kant's response is well known, it has been often misunderstood by scholars who see it as offering a definition of an historical period, rather than an attempt at characterizing a process that had a significant implications. This article seeks (1) to clarify, briefly, the particular question that Kant was answering, (2) to examine - using Jürgen Habermas’ work as a case in point - the tension between readings that use Kant's answer as a way of discussing the Enlightenment as a discrete historical period and those readings that see it as offering a broad outline of an “Enlightenment Project” that continues into the present, and (3) to explore how Michel Foucault, in a series of discussions of Kant's response, sketched an approach to Kant's text that offers a way of reframing Venturi's distinction between “philosophical” and “political” interpretations of the Enlightenment.