Self-Citation in Archaeology: Age, Gender, Prestige, and the Self

Citation analyses in archaeology have detected prestige tactics, shifts in research agendas, and patterns of gender differentiation. This paper focuses on self-citation in archaeology and systematically analyzes the factors that affect rates of self-citation. Self-citation rates in archaeology are significantly higher than in socio-cultural anthropology but are average for a social science with interdisciplinary ties to the physical sciences. Self-citation correlates weakly with the gender of the citing author and the geographic and thematic focus of research, but correlates strongly with the age of the author. Additional analyses reveal partial evidence for the use of self-citation as a prestige tactic. The paper concludes with a discussion of citations to writers close to the author (mentors, friends).     

Mapping a Future: Archaeology,Feminism, and Scientific Practice

Drawing on work in science studies, I argue for the importance of fieldwork and research practices when considering the relative significance of feminism within archaeology. Fieldwork, often presented as the unifying hallmark of all of anthropology, has a different resonance in archaeology at the level of material practice and specific techniques. In order to understand the relationship between archaeology and feminism we need to investigate methods, methodology, and interpretations of the material record simultaneously. Examining one practice, that of map making, I suggest venues amenable to feminist insights.     

作为独立学科的考古学——考古学、人类学、历史学学科体系之比较

关于中国考古学的学科归属问题一直存在着争议,一种意见认为考古学属于历史学的范畴;一种意见认为考古学应是人类学的分支学科之一。本将考古学与历史学、人类学的学科体系加以比较,论述了在学科起源、研究内容、研究方法、研究对象、分支学科等方面,考古学与历史学和人类学的差异。从而认为考古学与人类学、历史学有极其密切的联系,但它作为独立学科的趋势是必然的。     

Introduction

The eolith debate mirrors the development and demise of evolutionist anthropology in Britain between 1880 and 1940. This paper traces the connections between some of the key protagonists in the controversy, especially those associated with the Pitt-Rivers Museum at Oxford. The evolutionist pre-occupation of early Oxford anthropology with the continuity between archaeology and ethnology is shown to be linked to an interest in the Eolithic controversy, and these concerns persisted into a second generation as evolutionism was marginalized and prehistoric archaeology matured. Although the eolith debate finally floundered in the debris of the “epistemic rupture” between the world of Victorian evolutionism and late twentieth-century anthropology, some of its technical pre-occupations—particularly in relation to what we would now call ethnographic analogies and in terms of the techniques for distinguishing artefacts from geofacts—persist and are very much current issues.     

考？古？

每一个学科能够独立于学科之林都有其存在的理由。学科的意义从某种意义上说或许是一个空泛的概念,但它会作为一个疑问随着学习的深入会轮回地出现。因此,本文试图从考古学与人类学及历史学的关系入手,追溯三门学科的历史并进行简要对比,从而对考古学的现实意义（特别是由“关系”而产生的各种意义）获得某一层面的认识。并希望通过这样的思考。而更加清醒地认识考古学的研究对象和研究方法。     

Crossing disciplinary boundaries: On Gutorm Gjessing's archaeology and his conversion to ethnography

Gutorm Gjessing was one of the most influential investigators in Norwegian archaeology. He is particularly known for his monumental works on the Arctic Stone Age, which proposed an alternative to south‐north diffusionism. In 1947 Gjessing suddenly left archaeology in favour of ethnography at the Oslo Ethnographic Museum, which also led his carrier in a downhill direction. This article is partly biographical and partly analytical and claims that Gjessing's archaelogical works and theories in the 1930s ‐ 40s were only marginally non‐conformist, since they largely reflected current viewpoints in European culture‐historical archaeology. Gjessing's view of culture is located in culture‐historical archaeology and American cultural anthropology and it is compared with the anthropology of the “British School”. Also analyzed is how Gjessing in some respects placed himself on the fringe of the establishment. It is not pretended to give any definite answers, rather it is focused upon questions which can be raised and provides a more nuanced picture of” the mythology which has surrounded Gutorm Gjessing, both as archaeologist and anthropologist.     

Archaeology as Anthropology Revisited

Anthropology was established in the USA during the middle of the nineteenth century. From the beginning, archaeology was considered a part of the discipline, a notion that continues to this day. However, over the course of the past 160 years, periodically, the place of archaeology within anthropology is questioned. Often, this has a reflection in the growth or shrinking in membership of the Archaeology Division of the American Anthropological Association. I explore these trends and try to explain them in terms of the history of anthropology.     

浅谈生物塑化技术在考古学和人类学中的应用

虽然现在将生物塑化技术普及到文物资料保存工作当中的难度还很大,但这种技术在考古学和人类学领域的应用将具有广阔的前景。     

Culture and Power in the Anthropology of Japan

Though Japan anthropology since the 1970s has been characterized as outside mainstream anthropological currents, recent work reflects broader disciplinary debates about the relation between culture and power. The four books under review, spanning the archaeology, history, ethnography, and political science of Japan, illustrate different ways of synthesizing cultural and political perspectives. Yet, to varying degrees, they all move beyond an undifferentiated, ahistorical, and depoliticized view of culture to embrace complexity, variability, conflict, and change. In so doing, they raise important questions about knowledge construction across the subfields of anthropology and its uneasy relationship with nationalist and essentialist discourses.     

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.     

Archaeology Unfolding: Diversity and the Loss of Isolation

Summary.   British historical archaeology has seen new theoretical engagement in recent years. A diverse and distinctive body of theory has developed in this increasingly vibrant and international area of study, testing disciplinary boundaries, especially with history, social anthropology and material culture studies.
This paper takes stock of three distinct processes within the new historical archaeology: the birth of material history, the loss of antiquity, and the loss of isolation. The implications of these processes for the wider discipline are explored with reference to landscape archaeology, using the example of the Ironbridge Gorge, Shropshire. In a consideration of future directions, it is argued that historical archaeology provides particular insights to the need across the discipline for archaeology to respond with self-confidence to complexity by drawing out and celebrating diversity in theory and practice.     

Introduction: Biographies of Anthropologists as Anthropological Data

Biographies of anthropologists are widely recognized as useful for the history of science and the discipline. Introducing this special issue “Biographies of Anthropologists,” I argue that they not only provide information about anthropology, but also data for anthropology because they are studies of human agents enmeshed in social and cultural contexts, comparable to life histories of ethnographic informants. Biographies of anthropologists are of similar importance for empirical and theoretical anthropology as ethnographies, grammars, and monographs in archaeology and biological anthropology. They depict cultural dynamics from a person-centered, intimate, experience-near, and diachronic perspective on anthropology's cluster of sodalities.     

《渐中语类》补白

对《渐中语类——俞伟超先生晚年思想随录》一文的补充说明,以其生前发表的著作为线索,回顾了他的人文科学思想发展轨迹,集中于两个方面的问题:一是关于考古学、历史学、人类学三学科关系的本质,二是关于中国考古学在知识体系中的地位。     

Framing the past: situating the archaeological in photographs

Archaeology continually reproduces its own images. Speaking archaeology’s visual language is one way we prove membership in the discipline. Many aspects of this visual language have become so naturalized within archaeological representation as to be almost unquestionable: the cleaning of the site, the use of scale, and particular framings and perspectives. How, then, is the production of particular photographic images of archaeology related to the practice of archaeology? Does archaeology look a certain way (in photographs) or are archaeologists reproducing an archaeology according to the way it is thought it should look? Using examples of early photographs from Latin American archaeological expeditions, this article investigates not only photography as an applied technology for scientific recording, but also its power to situate archaeological knowledge. Drawing on recent reflective and critical developments in both the history of archaeology and visual anthropology, it uses five focal points – trace, objectivity and authenticity, sight/site, still lifes, and still lives – to argue that early-twentieth-century archaeological photographs of Latin America participated in the generation of an ‘authentic’ past rather than simply paid testament to it.     

考古学的定位和有关问题

考古学是一门独立的科学,往往被历史学、人类学或古器物学所包括。事实上它以田野工作为基础,以遗迹、遗物的实证为前提,其方法论是其它学科所无法代替的。     

Anthropology in the news? (Respond to this article at http://www.therai.org.uk/at/debate)

It is part of our informal culture of anthropology to complain about the way the media portray us, and yet there has been little systematic analysis of media representations of anthropology. I look at stories about anthropologists, stories that quote anthropologists and opinion pieces by anthropologists over a six‐month period in The New York Times. I conclude that biological anthropology and archaeology are over‐represented in these stories, and that the media portrays anthropologists primarily as authorities on exotic others abroad, or ritual behaviour at home. Anthropologists who write about neoliberalism and militarism have had difficulty getting into the high‐end mainstream media, where it is economists rather than anthropologists who are seen as experts on general human nature.     

Archaeologist as anthropologist: Much ado about something after all?

It has been said that “archaeology is anthropology or it is nothing.” And so archaeologists have become conversant in and contributors to cultural theory. Other archaeologists have undertaken ethnoarchaeological studies on material culture when ethnographers have not supplied the data needed. Yet archaeologists might undertake more traditional participant-observation fieldwork to help nuance the cultural questions we ask and to render our tales of the past more convincing, in particular, when we purport to speak of the sensuous and meaningful experience of the “prehistoric other.” This article discusses the venturing of one archaeologist in Madagascar tracking aspects of the classic problem of state origins across archaeology, oral history, ethnoarchaeology, and ethnography. This process of joining objective analysis to lived experience is perhaps the most proper task of anthropology, the one that distinguishes it from other social science…     

The Environmental Approach to Prehistoric Studies: Concepts and Theories

This article examines the main approaches to prehistoric environmental studies. The history of theories and concepts used in contemporary prehistory, archaeology, cultural and social anthropology, ecology, sociology, psychology, and demography is discussed. The author concludes with a plea for the concept of “living space” as a way to address certain problems in interdisciplinary studies of prehistoric societies.     

大地湾地画和史前社会的男性同性爱型岩画

文章通过人类学、民俗学、考古学的多重视角对甘肃秦安大地湾遗址仰韶文化晚期地画进行了剖析;撩开大地湾地画的面纱,其与世界各地史前时代广泛存在的男性同性爱型岩画颇多相似之处。     

Historical Archaeology and the Post-Columbian World of North America

Historical archaeology, with its interest in material culture and its use of the broader perspectives of anthropology and anthropological archaeology, has contributed to a distinctive understanding of the North American experience. Historical archaeologists have, to varying degrees, investigated the material traces of class, race, gender, and state formation. These studies provide an understanding of the origin of many of the social practices that undergird modern culture, a necessary, though neglected, case in a unified anthropological archaeology's goal of writing innovative world histories.