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     

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.     

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.     

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.

     

Is Androcentric Archaeology Really About Men?

The article starts with a discussion of the relation between feminist archaeology and gender archaeology followed by a short account of how androcentrism may influence on archaeological research. By exploring two representative examples I will argue that androcentric archaeology mainly reproduces stereotype images of men and do not provide much new or real knowledge about prehistoric men or understandings of masculinity. Consequently, there is a need to study prehistoric men as gendered and I will argue that to include studies in men and masculinity into a gender archaeology based on feminist theory might challenge androcentric archaeological studies just as much as to study women in prehistory.     

Another Dating Revolution for Prehistoric Archaeology?

Transitions to the Howiesons Poort Industry and other early modern human cultural phases have conventionally been explained as direct or indirect responses to major climatic and ecological fluctuations. Advances in optically stimulated luminescence dating have now provided the time resolution necessary to refute these explanations. However, for improvements in dating methods to have a revolutionary impact on the archaeology of early modern human evolution, the correction of these flawed narratives can only be regarded as a first step. What is more important is that the discipline now embraces the opportunity to analyse cultural entities in terms of their internal temporal structure, and hence to realign praxis with contemporary evolutionary theory.     

Translational Public Archaeology? Archaeology,Social Benefit,and Working with offenders in Wales (Part 2)

This article reports on a second case study in the relationship between archaeology and social benefit through working with young offenders in Wales. Whereas a previous article (Pudney, 2018), focused on the MORTARIA project — an archaeological education project engaging adult offenders in South Wales — this study explores the distinctive methods and challenges faced by the subsequent Heritage Graffiti Project (HGP). This project encountered similar, but also different, experiences to MORTARIA, involving different skills and technologies, as well as specific artistic engagement with place. The article considers the effectiveness of the HGP before reflecting on the two projects’ shared implications for future, translational public archaeology projects that wish to work with offenders.     

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.     

Faunal Materials and Interpretive Archaeology—Epistemology Reconsidered

The objective of this paper is twofold. It intends to reformulate the assumptions of interpretive archaeology and within this context to elaborate the framework within which one can study social and symbolic relationships between humans and animals in the prehistoric farming communities of Central Europe. Postprocessual archaeology has failed to provide a satisfactory account of how to judge the credibility of competing issues about the past. In the interpretive approach to animal bone assemblages, it is argued that the results of actualistic studies justify this credibility. The objective of actualistic studies is to establish how, when, and by whom the archaeological record has been produced. Credibility is also provided by the biological characteristics of animals maintained and consumed. The first level of credibility is a prerequisite to a further interpretation of the social dimensions of human action with respect to animals. The second level of interpretation is based on the horizontal distribution of archaeological pasts within and between sites.     

The Archaeology of Jerusalem — Between Post-Modernism and Delegitimization

Abstract

The study of the motivations, influences, and agendas of Israeli archaeology has always been the centre of heated debate, the profession today finding itself under the full, and usually highly critical, glare of modern archaeological theory and/or political polemics. This paper addresses the motivations of some these critics and from under the mesh of often over-stated argumentation, tries to provide a more level appreciation of current archaeological work in Jerusalem. Quite contrary to the impression given by some of the recent scholarship, it is argued that the great majority of the published and excavated archaeology of Jerusalem of the past decades presents the finds of the multiplicity of periods of the city’s history, quite divorced from overt and even covert influence of the surrounding volatile political situation.     

Historical Archaeology in Africa: An Appropriate Concept?

The term ‘ historical archaeology’ originated in the United States and was subsequently adopted in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, all places subjected to European colonization during the last few centuries. The idea of historical archaeology has had relatively little application in Europe, birthplace of the antithetical idea of prehistory. In Africa, other than at the southern tip of the continent, the practice of what is called historical archaeology has developed only recently and the relevance of the concept in Africa might be questioned. There are chronological problems in its application: not only are the interfaces between preliterate and literate societies spread over thousands of years in different areas but they can at times be regressive. The matter is further complicated if the term historical archaeology is used for societies whose history is oral not written. However, there is an ambiguity in this concept that also has methodological and other connotations. In these respects the idea of historical archaeology does perhaps have a place in Africa as a whole, but it represents a compartmentalization of our discipline still inadequately defined.     

The Research Laboratory for Conservation and Archaeology, Shanghai Meseum

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

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.     

The Origins and Ethics of Maritime Archaeology – Part I

Abstract

For archaeologists, the principal value of prehistoric figurines is that they offer a means – however limited – into the cultures and lives of prehistoric peoples. There is a long tradition of archaeologists assuming that the figurines they unearth had a religious significance for the people who created them (since anthropomorphic figurines have a religious use in many cultures with which we are familiar). However, just as archaeologists began questioning their attribution of divine status to prehistoric figurines in the 1960s, practitioners of neopagan and goddess spiritualities – particularly those in the feminist spirituality movement – were adopting it. Moreover, in addition to describing prehistoric figurines as images of a Great Goddess who dominated prehistoric religious life, these contemporary feminist neopagans use reproductions of prehistoric figurines to inspire and enact their own spirituality. Feminist neopagan appropriation of prehistoric figurines has been problematic for many archaeologists, who quarrel – legitimately – with the conclusions feminist neopagans make about prehistory based on these artefacts. Yet, as this article argues, the contemporary religious use of prehistoric figurines should not be a matter for archaeologists to decide.     

Working Borders: The Contexts of Copán Archaeology

The work of archaeologists and the knowledge they produce both help create, and are conditioned by, a variety of kinds of borders, including political, academic, and cultural. In this article I review a series of borders that shape and determine the social conditions in which archaeology at the well-known site of Copán in western Honduras takes place and takes on meaning. I argue that the histories of these borders, their construction, and their crossings reveal structural tensions in the overlapping registers of academia, public history and popular discourse, in which archaeological knowledge circulates. These histories must be consciously interrogated in order to be negotiated. I suggest that by becoming fluent in the cultural conversations ongoing in a place, archaeologists are best able to begin productive collaborations and make informed choices about how they participate in the border-making processes of their work.     

The Origins and Ethics of Maritime Archaeology – Part II

Abstract

The institution of maritime archaeology in 2007 stands in a privileged position, uniquely placed to comment upon and engage in 'live' contemporary debates such as the bicentenary of the abolition of slavery, and particularly responsible for comment upon the broader cultural impact of pending global risks such as climate change. With reference to such debates, this paper considers some possible short- and medium-term priorities for maritime archaeology.     

Alchemy or Science? Compromising Archaeology in the Deep Sea

In the torrid debate between archaeology and treasure hunting, compromise is often suggested as the pragmatic solution, especially for archaeology carried out either in deep water or beyond the constraints that commonly regulate such activities in territorial seas. Both the wisdom and the need for such compromise have even been advocated by some archaeologists, particularly in forums such as the internet and conferences. This paper argues that such a compromise is impossible, not in order to fuel confrontation but simply because of the nature of any academic discipline. We can define what archaeology is in terms of its aims, theories, methods and ethics, so combining it with an activity founded on opposing principles must transform it into something else. The way forward for archaeology in the deep sea does not lie in a contradictory realignment of archaeology’s goals but in collaborative research designed to mesh with emerging national and regional research and management plans.     

Won with Blood: Archaeology and Labor’s Struggle

Traditionally when Americans went to work they expected that they would earn a reasonable wage, work in a safe environment, put in a 40 h week, collect paid vacation days, earn sick leave, have the right to organize and receive health and retirement benefits. Increasingly, however, fewer and fewer workers receive these rights and today only a minority of people in the United States work under these conditions. The decline in real wages, benefits, rights and safety experienced by twenty-first century American workers has correlated with a decline in organized labor. Corporations and the right have assailed unions to erode worker’s rights and “increase competitiveness” in a globalized, neo-liberal, capitalist, world. The attacks on unions spring from a monstrous lie, that politicians and corporations gave labor these benefits and thus workers no longer need unions. On the battlefield of public policy, these assaults on organized labor work in a fundamentally ideological way that calls the continued existence of unions into question. In this paper, I will discuss how archaeological studies of labor’s struggle can reveal that contrary to the monstrous lie, workers and their families won worker’s rights with blood and that solidarity and organization remain essential to maintain these rights. The paper begins with the present state of labor’s struggle and looks to the past to consider its preconditions. Archaeologists have studied strikes, the lived experience of working class life and class war to study history backwards and these studies contribute to the labor’s struggle for the future.