Some remarks on ethnicity in medieval archaeology

Recent critiques of the culture‐historical approach to ethnicity have denounced the idea that archaeological cultures are ‘actors’ on the historical stage, playing the role that known individuals or groups have in documentary history. But the critique has gone as far as to claim that, because archaeologists supposedly have no access to the meaning of cultural traditions, medieval ethnicity cannot be studied by archeological means. Ethnicity should be banned from all discussions, if medieval archaeology is to make any progress in the future. The paper examines the theoretical malaise at the root of this scepticism verging on nihilism. The understanding of the archaeological record not as an imprint, but as a text allows for much learning about meaning in the past. Symbols, style and power are the key concepts that currently guide anthropological research on ethnicity as a ‘social construction of primordiality’. As several archaeological examples show, medieval ethnicity was a form of social mobilization used in order to reach certain political goals. Ethnic identity was built upon some pre‐existing cultural identity, in a prototypic manner.     

Commentary: Medieval and Post-Medieval Archaeology of Greece

Recent work by archaeologists emphasized the contributions of archaeological fieldwork to the study of post-classical Greece. This marks a significant departure from traditional approaches to the archaeology of Byzantium that tended to focus on art historical methods and architectural history. Despite these changes in the study of post-classical Greece, the issues of abandonment, continuity and change continue to play an important role both in ongoing debates and will undoubtedly influence future research priorities. Only collaboration among scholars who study historical archaeology in Greece and elsewhere will ensure the continued relevance of this field even as these long-standing debates wane in relevance.     

Public Significance and Imagined Archaeologists: Authoring Pasts in Context

This paper explores how archaeological authorship is an articulation of the imagined social roles archaeologists play with the actual contexts of our practice. The discovery of popular public discourses on archaeology should not be seen as impediments to pure archaeologies, but as routes to the significance archaeology seeks to attain. A parallel concern with the determining influence of public concerns in ethnography is reviewed to develop a method for an archaeology that is truly publicly formed. An example of a public archaeology program developed in dialogue with existing historical debates in Annapolis, Maryland illustrates.     

The medieval to early modern transition in a digital age: new developments relevant to the study of domestic buildings

SUMMARY: Transitions in the archaeological and historical record are difficult to discuss and frequently avoided. The authors briefly outline here how this topic has been studied, particularly in Post-Medieval Archaeology, reviewing differences of approach between European-based archaeologists, who stress continuities with medieval times, and archaeologists in the USA and elsewhere, who commence their studies with the arrival of Europeans. This outline is then used to explore how this earliest formative era of the post-medieval period can be studied via modern digital techniques, using a case study drawing on the study of buildings archaeology to further understanding of the transition. This 50th-anniversary contribution therefore intentionally bridges the old and the new.     

Digital Support for Archaeology

Abstract

We describe an interdisciplinary approach in which computer scientists develop techniques to support archaeology. In the Reading Images for the Cultural Heritage (RICH) project, a variety of methods have been developed to support archaeologists in the visualization, categorization, and characterization of archaeological objects, such as medieval glass, coins, ceramics, and seeds. The methods are based on image processing and machine learning algorithms that are tailored to the task at hand. We describe the algorithms and illustrate their application on archaeological datasets. The virtues and pitfalls of the interdisciplinary approach to archaeology are discussed.     

Archaeology and roman society: Integrating textual and archaeological data

Although the collection of new data and the development of an enduring interest in theoretical concerns characterize much current work in Roman archaeology, the field continues to experience, tension between traditional classical archaeological approaches and practices borrowed from other branches of archaeology. This tension is most clearly visible with the integration of textual and archaeological data. How the dynamic between these provenances plays out in Roman archaeology can be seen in theoretical and methodological applications, the use of field survey, and the adoption of an Annaliste perspective by some Roman archaeologists. Text and archaeology are crucial contributors to the the study of early Rome and its origins, investigations in the capital for all periods, the study of Pompeii, and attempts to illuminate the chief characteristics of the Roman economy. Many advances in Roman archaeology have occurred largely as a result of a conscious attempt on the part of Roman archaeologists to properly contextualize textual data in light of the archaeological data, thereby providing a better balance between the two sets of information and liberating archeeology from being the “handmaid of history.”     

Towards a Transpacific Archaeology of the Modern World

The historical archaeology of overseas Chinese communities is a rapidly growing subfield. Although historical archaeology is not widely practiced in China, there are well-developed interdiscipinary research centers that investigate the history and culture of migrants’ qiaoxiang (hometown) societies. Scholars in American Studies programs throughout Asia are also bringing new perspectives to the study of Chinese migration past and present. By collaborating with these scholars, archaeologists on the Chinese Railroad Workers in North America Project are developing new chronological, geographic, spatial, and material frameworks for the interpretation of overseas Chinese archaeological sites and landscapes.     

Archaeology and the Irish rediscovery of the Celtic past

This article examines the place of archaeology in the second wave of Irish cultural nationalism, and how archaeological findings were appropriated by rival ethno‐religious communities in Ireland. In particular, it focuses on George Petrie, who was the founder of ‘scientific’ archaeology and was also one of the leading figures in the nineteenth‐century Celtic revival that sought a moral regeneration of the Irish nation In Ireland, as elsewhere, archaeology was important in reconstructing an early history of the nation where few written records existed and in making this visible through material artefacts. However, archaeology was only significant as part of a wider cultural revival that presented artefacts and sites as national symbols to an island undergoing rapid social change. This article will explore the relationship between archaeology and this national revival, and how the material objects recovered by archaeologists extended and transformed the existing repertoires of how the nation was imagined and felt. It will assess the different reception of these images in the rival Catholic and Protestant communities. Finally, it will comment on the capacity of a medieval ‘Celtic’ repertoire to provide the basis of a dynamic modern Irish national culture.     

Finding Meaning in Ancient Swahili Spatial Practices

The development of the Swahili world involved new ways of organizing and conceiving of space. Archaeology and historical linguistics are both crucial in charting the trajectory of changing spatial practice during the late first and early second millennium ad, yet their respective datasets have been correlated only in specific and restricted ways. In this paper, we take the first steps toward working between archaeological and historical linguistic data to understand the changing contexts and meanings of Swahili spatial practice. We develop this argument in three parts. First, we review archaeological approaches to space in the Swahili world and develop a holistic view of towns, including both confined and delimited space. Second, we offer an archaeologists’ perspective on the development of historical linguistics in relation to the Swahili world, exploring the changing relationship between linguistics and archaeology and arguing for a greater appreciation of context in how archaeological materials are deployed with linguistic data. Finally, drawing on new data from Songo Mnara, a fourteenth–sixteenth-century Swahili town on the southern Tanzania coast, we make a preliminary attempt to reconcile some aspects of the archaeological and linguistic datasets. Using published lexical innovations, we suggest ways that meaning might be found alternatively in archaeological and linguistic data. Our hope is to make some tentative steps toward a mutually satisfying way of working between disciplines.     

现代中国环境考古研究模式的分析

本文将1987年以来的中国环境考古研究称为"现代中国环境考古研究",并将之归纳为"考古地理的环境考古研究模式"、"文化历史环境考古研究模式"和"资源环境考古研究模式"。本文对这三种研究模式的合理性进行了分析。接下来,从考古学的基本理论假设出发,指出环境考古学、文化历史考古学之间并没有严格的继承关系,中国环境考古研究的最大问题是核心概念的不匹配。最后,通过考察西方环境考古研究和考古学史,本文提出应该用文化适应,即"考古学中的文化"取代考古学文化而将之作为核心概念进行环境考古研究,让中国环境考古摆脱文化历史考古学概念体系的束缚。     

Re-visiting the field: Collaborative archaeology as paradigm shift

Abstract

The emphasis of the JFA on field methods resonates strongly with current disciplinary interest in multivocality and participatory research. In this new epistemology of inclusiveness, communities play an active role in the production of archaeological knowledge as well as in the conservation of cultural heritage. From the perspective of archaeologists trained in the U.S. who conduct research in Latin America, we historicize changes in the triadic relationship among archaeologists, contemporary communities, and things of the past. This examination focuses on the evolving social context of archaeological practice. The social milieu within which archaeology is conducted is explored further by reference to a recent survey of archaeologists that elicited comments on grand challenges to archaeology. A few examples of the many forms that an engaged archaeology might take are offered from the Maya region. Although collaborative research poses challenges that emerge as communities entangled with archaeological practice become research partners, we suggest that the enhanced relevance that accompanies this transformation is well worth the effort.     

考古发掘与考古发现

考古发现和考古学理论方法是考古学赖以进步的两条腿。考古发现不断刷新考古学家的视野并为考古学研究的深入提供新的资料,考古学理论方法使考古学的眼睛更加明亮,分析和思考更具有科学的力量。理论方法让考古学家对考古发现有更深入的认识,考古发现同时也推动综合研究和理论方法的进步。此外,考古发现往往会引起社会的关注,考古发现和考古学知识的普及可以为考古学的进步提供良好的社会环境,从而对考古学的发展产生强大的推动力量。考古学的持续发展要求考古学家必须正确处理考古发现、考古学自身理论方法的完善以及考古学与化遗产保护、公众知识状况和社会需求的关系。     

Review Essay: Taking the Pulse of Emerging Modernity

The archaeology of the development of modernity as it emerged out of the Middle Ages is potentially one of the most important and powerful areas of study that can be pursued today. A number of historical archaeologists in Europe have taken up the difficult task of examining this transition, and are currently providing insights into the shift from feudalism to mercantilism and capitalism. This topic is both important to the understanding of history and to providing tangible proof that historical archaeology has the potential to contribute to knowledge about the globalization process. Three recent books in particular are especially significant in this archaeological endeavor.     

Historical Archaeology: An Outlook from the Argentinean Pampas

This paper ponders a number of theoretical and methodological aspects concerning historical archaeology and resulting from an analysis of their development and integration with disciplines such as history, ethnohistory, and anthropology. Special attention is paid to how these are involved in the research of documentary evidence and how the different approaches have an influence on a given case. The authors' viewpoint in the matter is explained and reported on the basis of the fleldwork they conducted at an archaeological site: a midnineteenth-century fortlet located in the center of Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina.     

Household Archaeology in the Southeastern United States: History,Trends, and Challenges

This review highlights archaeological investigations of prehistoric and historic households in southeastern North America. There are a number of inherent challenges to the archaeology of households in the region, including generally poor preservation and a long history of relatively insubstantial domestic architecture. An appraisal of the historical development of household archaeology developed slowly in the Southeast, largely in reaction to trends in other areas of the world. Over the last decade, however, southeastern archaeologists have been at the vanguard of the application of new approaches to households. From an early focus on generalizable patterns of domestic activities and behavior, researchers increasingly view households as historical constructs situated within larger landscapes. Prominent areas of concern include enduring issues such as status variation, production, and consumption but also newer themes such as gender, identity and ethnicity, agency and power, and ritual and symbolism. Some of the most innovative studies explore the intersections of these topics. Conceptual and methodological challenges remain, but the household endures as a practical and productive focus of analysis and interpretation for southeastern archaeologists more than 30 years after household research in the area began.     

Archaeology’s quest for a seat at the high table of anthropology

Between 1900 and 1970, American archaeologists perceived themselves as second-class anthropologists because the archaeological record suggested little not already known ethnographically, archaeology served anthropology by testing ethnologically derived models of cultural evolution, the archaeological record was ethnologically incomplete as a result of poor preservation, and archaeologists used but did not write anthropological theory. Ethnologists of the period agreed with these points and regularly reminded archaeologists of their limited role in anthropology. A few archaeologists claimed in the 1950s that archaeology could contribute to anthropological theory but they were ignored. The claim was reiterated by new archaeologists of the 1960s, and by the 1970s worries about the poor preservation of the archaeological record had softened. However, most archaeologists after 1970 (and before 1990) used anthropological theory and did not write new theory on the basis of archaeological data. The root cause of American archaeology’s ninety-year absence from anthropology’s high table of theory seems to be the discipline-wide retention of the ninety-year old belief that archaeology is prehistoric ethnology and the (unnecessary and constraining) corollary that archaeologists must use anthropological theory to explain the archaeological record.     

Units of Archaeological Stratification

The excavating archaeologists’ methodological set ‐ excavation, recording, analysis and publication ‐ rests on the notions and principles of the stratigraphic succession of archaeological deposits. Since 1954 when Sir Mortimer Wheeler published Archaeology From the Earth, there has been a dearth of published discussion on the stratigraphie theory in archaeology. This paper examines some of the background of the stratigraphie notion in archaeology and a revised model for archaeological stratigraphy based on ‘units of stratification’ is presented. Re‐evaluations of stratigraphie configurations in archaeology arc perhaps long overdue and this article is an attempt to engender discussion on this fundamental archaeological tenet.     

Advisory Commissions for Archaeology — Sense or Nonsense? The Case of Belgium

Abstract

Belgium has a long tradition of consultative commissions, responsible for the preservation of heritage. In the 1940s and 1950s, Belgian archaeologists expressed a need for such an institute, specifically competent for archaeology and the supervision of excavations. Only in 1965, the first members of a National Commission for Excavations were appointed. They had modest powers, but were able to advocate the value of archaeological heritage and, to a limited extent, supervise fieldwork performed by amateurs. The Commission was also asked to prepare a legal text that would protect archaeological heritage. However, ratified laws were not accomplished and, despite much regret of Belgian archaeologists, the Commission was abolished in 1979.

During the 1980s, Belgium underwent several state reforms which ultimately resulted in the complete regionalization of archaeology (1988–89). Throughout this period, a shift in opinion occurred between Walloon (French-speaking) and Flemish (Dutch-speaking) archaeologists. This resulted in different arrangements of governmental agencies responsible for immovable heritage and archaeology. Nonetheless, as UNESCO had recommended in 1968, all three Belgian regions (including the Brussels-Capital Region) installed advisory commissions that were involved in the preservation in situ of archaeological remains. However, these consultative bodies had little influence on politics and policy. Especially in Flanders, the Archaeological Council achieved very little. Probably, the lack of continuity retained the Council from building up a reputation and authority. Nevertheless, advisory commissions for archaeology do make sense in Belgium. They provide a necessary ‘forum’ to discuss problems and to express undivided opinions; they form a ‘channel’ to communicate with policy makers; and they present an ‘instrument’ for advocating the preservation of archaeological heritage.     

Assessing Methodologies in Archaeological Ethnography: A Case for Incorporating Ethnographic Training in Graduate Archaeology Curricula

Abstract

Archaeologists have increasingly turned to ethnography as a tool for understanding the contemporary social context of material culture, archaeological practice, and ‘de-colonizing’ archaeology. Furthermore, ethnographers have turned their analysis to the practice of archaeology, providing insights into key ethical dilemmas. This work has produced signi?cant dialogue, demonstrating the potential for research and collaboration at the interface of two sub-disciplines. However, much of the research to date has relied on a limited range of ethnographic methods. We suggest that archaeologists working in this area would bene?t from using a wider repertoire of ethnographic data collection tools and ethics training opportunities. We advocate for greater collaboration between archaeologists and ethnographers and provide suggestions on methods that are well-suited for use in archaeological practice. In the long term, the most effective and far-reaching solution may be to incorporate ethnographic methods training as fundamental to graduate programmes in archaeology.     

?Doing Archaeology?: cultural heritage management and its role in identifying the link between archaeological practice and theory

Using a case study of the recent history of archaeology in Australia, the paper details how Cultural Heritage Management, in addition to protecting the archaeological data base, actually protects archaeological access to it. In offering this protection, archaeologists involved in Cultural Heritage Management become the regulators of archaeological practice and theory. Here archaeology comes into direct contact and conflict with governments and a range of interest groups, notably the Aboriginal community, with a stake in material culture. In effect 'doing' Cultural Heritage Management is 'doing' archaeology.