Archaeology and Development: A Difficult Dialogue

Archaeology and development are considered here from the point of view of the relevance of archaeological results to the problems of development, those being mainly questions of identity in this case. The weight of archaeological contribution is emphasized, as well as the basic problem caused by the association of the peoples' conceptions of their own history with the definitions provided by archaeology. In effect, here are two kinds of knowledge different by constitution: one scientific, the other not. This unavoidable fact, whether it occurs in historical syntheses or in ideological manipulations, must be taken into account by pluridisciplinary research.     

Leire Olabarria: Kinship and Family in Ancient Egypt: Archaeology and Anthropology in Dialogue

African Archaeological Review -     

Archaeology on the Western Front: the Archaeology of Popular Myths

Abstract

The Sámi of today (the Lapps of yesteryear), currently divided from each other by the national boundaries of Finland, Norway, Russia and Sweden, have been, at least in part, ‘defined’ in the past by archaeology and its practices. In creating and modifying identities believedto be appropriate to the 21^st century, the Sámi facemany problems similar to other ‘indigenous’ and minority groups in the world. These include struggles to repatriate human remains and objects of material culture, others concern the use of the archaeological evidence to determine longevity of tradition and land rights, and still others demonstrate the role of heritage in the definitions of ethnicity and even in tourist presentations of what the Sámi might become, or might have been, or currently are.     

古代残留物分析在考古中的应用

动植物是人类社会发展的重要基石,它的利用是人类适应、改造和征服自然的物质基础,古代社会的方方面面都与之相关,因而动植物及其制品的残留物分析能提供古代社会丰富的信息。残留物分析重点在于从残留物中提取有机物。利用科学检测手段进行定性定量分析来判断残留物来源,从而了解古代动植物的加工、利用和相关载体的功能等。本文从DNA、淀粉粒、蛋白质、脂类、炭化物和酒等六个方面简要介绍了残留物分析的方法和进展,希望能促进残留物分析在中国的开展．     

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.     

论聚落考古中的空间分析方法

空间分析在聚落考古研究中占有重要地位。从单座房屋,到整个遗址,再到由若干遗址组成的区域,空间分布和与此相关联的空间分析能够提供同一时间维度上当时人们共同体的聚落结构、社会关系和组织形态的信息。同样,依据这些信息还可以进行不同时间维度社会和文化变迁的研究。因而,空间分析为我们提供了认识古代社会一种方法。     

Rethinking Assemblage Analysis: New Approaches to the Archaeology of Working-Class Neighborhoods

In this paper I argue for an expansion of the role of assemblage analysis in understanding daily life in nineteenth-century working-class neighborhoods. The close and systematic examination of quality manufacture of nineteenth-century domestic goods offers a material link to consumer decision-making. This is demonstrated in a study of material culture from working-class sites in Sydney and London.     

Archaeology without gravity: Postmodernism and the past

Interdisciplinary approaches to the study of the past and the present have become commonplace: anthropologists now situate cultures in their historical contexts, while historians pursue particularistic ends within politicoeconomic or ideational structures. Archaeologists have cast their nets even more widely, not only toward anthropology and history, but to fields ranging from molecular biology to hermeneutics. Postmodernist approaches maintain that archaeologists should be looking at the past from multiple perspectives and listening to its multivocality. Archaeologists, in fact, not only develop different ways of understanding the past, but actually develop alternative pasts. This paper argues that multiple paths to alternative pasts enhance archaeological understanding and, at the same time, stimulate the development of archaeological theory.     

Memory as Archaeology: An Experience of Public Archaeology in the Atacama Desert

Conducting archaeological projects in areas inhabited by Indigenous Communities who dislike both excavations and archaeologists leads to an ethical conundrum, one requiring a reconsideration of the research methodologies utilized in these settings, and a turn toward Public Archaeology as a means to find alternative pathways. This article describes a research project conducted in the Indigenous Atacameño Community of Peine, in the Atacama Desert, Chile, where, through a principal methodology of Participatory Action Research, it became possible to explore the past of this community in ways that were both meaningful and valid for its members. The results drawn from this experience differ markedly from traditional archaeological approaches (i.e. excavations, analysis of material culture), both in terms of the nature of the knowledge recovered and the temporal depth achieved. In this particular instance, collective remembrance and embodied memory featured prominently in accounting for the past of Peine.     

Editorial: Railway Archaeology

Abstract

The following paper argues that archaeological analyses of communities of recent centuries can be as rewarding a means of understanding the past as the examination of the development of particular technologies.     

Introduction: Feminist Theories and Archaeology

This journal issue developed out of a desire to increase the use of feminist theory in archaeology, leading me to ask Laurajane Smith of York University to co-organize a symposium on the topic for the World Archaeological Congress in Dublin in July 2008. The impacts of major feminist theories on constructions of the past and archaeological thinking are discussed, emphasizing how they implicitly or explicitly influenced other articles in this journal issue.     

Cross-Cultural Approaches in Archaeology: Comparative Ethnology, Comparative Archaeology, and Archaeoethnology

Cross-cultural approaches have been used widely in archaeological research. Comparative ethnology has provided a number of archaeological indicators of behavior, but large segments of the archaeological record have not yet been subjected to extensive comparative analysis. Comparative archaeology has aided in exploring variation among societal types (such as chiefdoms) and categories within the archaeological record (such as settlements). Diachronic comparisons have been used frequently by archaeologists, but these have often been based on unique samples and only rarely have employed statistics to aid in the discovery or testing of hypotheses. Archaeoethnology, comparative analyses of archaeological cases employing valid samples and statistical evaluation of theories and hypotheses, is introduced.     

Virtual Forum: Archaeology and Decolonization

In this forum, patiently achieved through months of cyber-work, participants Nayanjot Lahiri (India), Nick Shepherd (South Africa), Joe Watkins (USA) and Larry Zimmerman (USA), plus the two editors of Arqueología Suramericana, Alejandro Haber (Argentina) and Cristóbal Gnecco (Colombia), discuss the topic of archaeology and decolonization. Nayanjot Lahiri teaches archaeology in her capacity as Professor at the Department of History, University of Delhi. Her books include Finding Forgotten Cities: How the Indus Civilization was Discovered (2005) and The Archaeology of Indian Trade Routes (1992). She has edited The Decline and Fall of the Indus Civilization (2000) and an issue of World Archaeology entitled The Archaeology of Hinduism (2004). Nick Shepherd is a senior lecturer in the Center for African Studies at the University of Cape Town, where he convenes the program in public culture in Africa. He sits on the executive committee of the World Archaeological Congress, and is co-editor of the journal Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress. In 2004 he was based at Harvard University as a Mandela Fellow. He has published widely on issues of archaeology and society in Africa, and on issues of public history and heritage. Joe Watkins is Choctaw Indian and archaeologist Joe Watkins is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of New Mexico. He is 1/2 Choctaw Indian by blood, and has been involved in archaeology for more than thirty-five years. He received his Bachelor’s of Arts degree in Anthropology from the University of Oklahoma and his Master’s of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy degrees in Anthropology from Southern Methodist University, where his doctorate examined archaeologists’ responses to questionnaire scenarios concerning their perceptions of American Indian issues. His current study interests include the ethical practice of anthropology and the study of anthropology’s relationships with descendant communities and Aboriginal populations, and he has published numerous articles on these topics. His first book Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice (AltaMira Press, 2000) examined the relationships between American Indians and archaeologists and is in its second printing His latest book, Reclaiming Physical Heritage: Repatriation and Sacred Sites (Chelsea House Publishers 2005) is aimed toward creating an awareness of Native American issues among high school students. Larry J. Zimmerman is Professor of Anthropology and Museum Studies and Public Scholar of Native American Representation at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis and the Eiteljorg Museum of American Indians and Western Art. He is Vice President of the World Archaeological Congress. He also has served WAC as its Executive Secretary and as the organizer of the first WAC Inter-Congress on Archaeological Ethics and the Treatment of the Dead. His research interests include the archaeology of the North American Plains, contemporary American Indian issues, and his current project examining the archaeology of homelessness. Originally published in Spanish in Arqueología Suramericana 3(1), 2007     

度量关系的新方法:考古学中的网络分析

考古学中的网络分析以节点和链接为底层架构,强调以联系的视角去看待事物本身及其发展过程,探究此种联系是如何对古代社会的进程产生影响的.两个学术传统的交织塑造了当前网络分析在考古学中的面貌:社会网络分析(Social network analysis)和复杂性科学(Complexity science).其研究思路分为两种...     

Shards of Meaning: Archaeology and the Melanesia-Polynesia Divide

Abstract

Among the many consequences of colonisation in the Pacific were the twin processes of conjunction and separation of indigenous societies following the establishment of colonial boundaries. In the Solomon Islands, both occurred. Particularly in the northwest, earlier connections were reduced (although not eliminated) following the establishment of the British‐German boundary between the British Solomon Islands Protectorate (BSIP) and German (later British) New Guinea. Other parts of the Solomons which had previously had less contact were conjoined into the BSIP, which later became the independent state of the Solomons Islands. I consider some of the outcomes of these processes for New Georgian (Western Solomons) notions of nationhood. I discuss the question of Western sentiments towards the Papua New Guinea island of Bougainville, but focus primarily on New Georgian ambivalence towards union with other parts of the Solomons, particularly Malaita Province.     

Archaeology and the Bible Revisited: A Review Article

David and Solomon, a new book by Israel Finkelstein and Niels Asher Silberman, through their discussion of Palestinian archaeology's current understanding, proposes to provide evidence to prove the accuracy of Frank Cross's more than 30 year old revision of Martin Noth's theory of a “Deuteronomistic History.” The authors attempt to confirm the history of the redaction of the biblical narratives about Saul, David and Solomon, involving seven distinct oral and four written strata of tradition. Their argument moreover claims the warrant to assert the historicity of each of these legendary kings of Israel. The present article argues to the contrary that the “archaeological evidence” proposed does not support such a redaction history nor establish the historicity of either the biblical figures or their stories, but that the harmony of biblical and archaeological issues is circular and illegitimate by the standards of historical research. It argues, moreover, that the claim of an oral tradition, reflecting original memories of an historical David or Saul is an entirely unnecessary and unlikely explanation for the origins of both the figures and their tales in the stories of 1-2 Samuel and 1 Kings. It moreover argues that the hypothesis of a redaction history in a succession of four cumulative revisions, beginning in the eighth century and completed in the sixth to fourth century, BCE—lacking as it does reference to a readable text—is neither critical nor falsifiable. Finally, Finkelstein and Silberman's book is judged as an unsuccessful attempt to return to the methods of “biblical archaeology” that were legitimately impeached in the mid-1970s.