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.     

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.     

Archaeology in Translation

In this editorial I note a type of resistance to the hegemony of English in academic contexts and call for consideration of expanding on this development. In an editors note I go on the credit assistant editors Marcia Bezerra, Julie Holowell and Alexander Hererra who were inadvertently not acknowledged in the volumes to which they contributed.

---

Resumen En este editorial hago notar una cierta resistencia hacia la hegemonía del idioma inglés en contextos académicos y hago un llamado a considerar la expansión de este desarrollo. En una nota editorial doy crédito a los editores asistentes Marcia Becerra, Julie Hollowell y Alexander Herrera, quienes inadvertidamente no fueron reconocidos en los volúmenes donde ellos contribuyeron.

---

Résumé Dans cette rédaction, je remarque une résistance à l’hégémonie de l’anglais dans le contexte académique, ce qui demande une certaine réflexion pour nous étendre sur ce sujet. Dans une note de l’éditeur dans laquelle je suis mentionnée, les rédacteurs adjoints Marcia Bezerra, Julie Holowell et Alexander Hererra n’ont pas, par inadvertance, été reconnus dans les publications auxquelles ils ont contribué.

     

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.     

Preservation in Industrial Archaeology

Abstract

Much of the recent interest in Industrial Archaeology has grown out of the preservation movement: the standing of the subject, in the eyes of the world, is particularly influenced by our choices for preservation and the methods of presentation which we employ. It therefore behoves us to ensure a proper theoretical basis for industrial preservation. This paper offers some suggestions for much needed guidelines concerning the rational selection and treatment of those industrial remains which ought to be preserved. The question of 'total environment preservation' is also considered.     

Professionalism in Historical Archaeology

As historical archaeology expands across the globe, issues over the nature of professionalism are sure to arise with greater frequency. In this essay, I explore the subject of professionalism in historical archaeology and offer a few personal comments and observations on this important subject. For me, personal integrity can play a huge role in furthering the cause of archaeology among an often-uninterested public.     

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.     

Geographic Visualization in Archaeology

Archaeologists are often considered frontrunners in employing spatial approaches within the social sciences and humanities, including geospatial technologies such as geographic information systems (GIS) that are now routinely used in archaeology. Since the late 1980s, GIS has mainly been used to support data collection and management as well as spatial analysis and modeling. While fruitful, these efforts have arguably neglected the potential contribution of advanced visualization methods to the generation of broader archaeological knowledge. This paper reviews the use of GIS in archaeology from a geographic visualization (geovisual) perspective and examines how these methods can broaden the scope of archaeological research in an era of more user-friendly cyber-infrastructures. Like most computational databases, GIS do not easily support temporal data. This limitation is particularly problematic in archaeology because processes and events are best understood in space and time. To deal with such shortcomings in existing tools, archaeologists often end up having to reduce the diversity and complexity of archaeological phenomena. Recent developments in geographic visualization begin to address some of these issues and are pertinent in the globalized world as archaeologists amass vast new bodies of georeferenced information and work towards integrating them with traditional archaeological data. Greater effort in developing geovisualization and geovisual analytics appropriate for archaeological data can create opportunities to visualize, navigate, and assess different sources of information within the larger archaeological community, thus enhancing possibilities for collaborative research and new forms of critical inquiry.     

Archaeology in African museums

Museums curate, document, conserve, and protect the earth's diverse natural and cultural heritage for purposes of educating humankind. Through research, exhibitions, and other activities that stress our common demominators and achievements, museums help us to forge and affirm local, ethnic, national, and international identities, unity, and pride. To accomplish such diverse goals, museums require dynamic, dedicated, ethical, and fairly well-educated staff. Museums must also be well-funded and should have local, national, and international support systems. This paper discusses the challenges faced by museum professionals in Africa, especially archaeologists, as they attempt to unearth, and in some cases reinterpret, Africa's cultural history.     

考古学中的聚落形态

〔编者按 :SettlementPatternsinArchaeology (《考古学中的聚落形态》) ,原是作为CurrentTopicsinAnthropology之一种 (vol 5,no 2 4:1 - 2 6 Mass :Addison -WesleyPublishingCo )于 1 972年出版的。这篇长文和张光直先生主编的论文集SettlementArchaeology (《聚落考古学》 ,PaloAlto :NationalPress,1 968)等一道 ,奠定了先生在西方考古学中聚落考古理论方面的领导地位。论者认为 ,张光直先生关于早期人类聚落形态及其演化的研究 ,“使几代考古学者受益 ,其中不仅仅是那些对中国有兴趣的人。” (WolfgangSaxon ,“K C Chang ,69,anthropologistwhodocumentedChineseBronzeagesociety ,dies” ,NewYorkTimes,January 1 6,2 0 0 1 )也有学者指出 ,直到今天还是这样。他对 2 0世纪六七十年代考古学方法论的讨论做出过重要贡献” (RobertE Murowchicketal “Editor’sPreface”viii,JournalofEastAsianArchaeologyVol 1 ,1 - 4 1 999)。张光直先生 (1 93 1～ 2 0 0 1年 )生前对本刊非常关心 ,本刊也先后发表过先生多篇论文和采访录。这篇原本计划收入张先生文集的早期论文 ,为纪念张光直先生逝世一周年 ,经文集编者同意先行在这里发表 ,以表达本刊对这位伟大学者的悼念之情。〕     

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.     

考古学中的聚落形态

西方考古学中聚落考古的概念自上世纪80年代由张光直首先引入中国,已经有20多年的历史。在这20多年中,聚落考古学在中国有了很大的发展,大家对聚落考古的理论、方法和技术已经比较熟悉,在实践方面也取得了相当大的成就。可以说,聚落考古学当前已经与地层学、类型学一样成为了中国考古学的基本方法之一。欧文·劳斯这篇与张光直的名篇同名的文章都是发表于1972年。在那个年代,西方考古学中的聚落考古研究正是方兴未艾。虽然同为全面介绍聚落考古学的论文,但劳斯在概念的理解与运用上与张光直却有很大的不同。张光直主要侧重聚落考古在社会关系研究方面的作用,与威利和特里格一样认为聚落考古就是运用考古资料进行社会关系的研究。而劳斯则从另一个角度出发来看待聚落形态概念在考古研究中的作用,受系统论的影响较大。将这篇文章与以往介绍到国内的聚落考古方面的文献结合阅读,会对西方聚落考古学有一个更加全面的认识。劳斯认为一个人群的生活系由三个系统所组成,即生态系统、文化系统和社会系统。生态系统反映了对环境的适应和资源的利用,文化系统系指人们的日常行为,社会系统则是指各类组织性的群体、机构和制度。在针对过去人类生活的全部问题中,聚落形态的概念(本文作者用的是残存聚落形态,指出了聚落形态作为考古遗存和研究对象的特点,认为它是由人类行为点的网络和每个点位的行为组合所构成)在与此三个系统有关的研究中特别有用。运用聚落形态方法,不仅可以研究文化的社会关系方面,也可以研究文化的生态和行为方面。在实践中,可以从这三类系统所拥有的亚系统入手,寻找证据以重建以上三类系统,复原人类的生活。他将聚落形态分为三个类型,即分散型、集中型和共生型。其中最有启发性的是维生和专职共生形态,它为研究文明化问题提供了一个十分重要的概念工具。另外,从聚落形态的概念出发,劳斯还探讨了文明与城市化的区别及其在考古学实践上的价值,也颇有意义。