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.     

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.     

Japanese archaeology in the 1990s

As scientific archaeology takes hold in Japan, our understanding of the nature and content of Japanese prehistory is changing radically. All of the period boundaries of Japanese prehistory are being rewritten, and many new “archaeologies” are growing up around particular scientific techniques. New publications in English give greater access to archaeological thinking in Japan, while Japanese publications focus on ever-narrowing aspects of prehistoric lifeways. Policy changes are giving archaeologists more access to the imperial tombs, and rescue teams are under less obligation to “save everything” as selective preservation is instituted.     

A Future for Archaeology: In Defense of an Intellectually Engaged,Collaborative and Confident Archaeology

Through a critical review of inter- and transdisciplinarity in archaeology, this paper examines the power relationships within archaeology with regards to collaborators within and beyond the academy. By making a case for an archaeology that openly collaborates across disciplines and knowledge systems, but also more firmly articulates itself and its value, the paper makes a case for an engaged and problematising archaeology for the future.     

21世纪的中国考古学

中国考古是世界上国别考古中时空最大、体量最宏、内容最为丰富的考古学体系,本世纪中国考古最大的成就就是考古学文化时空体系的建立与完善,以及对传统的中国历史体系的修正和补充。２１世纪,中国考古学不但应当在揭示华夏传统的形成以及人类、农牧和文明国家三大起源问题上有所贡献,更应依赖自身的优势,对考古学以及整个人文科学的理论建设做出贡献。     

21世纪中国考古学的若干特点及发展趋势:从“中华文明探源工程”说起——王巍所长专访

21世纪以来,中国考古学呈现出新的学科特点和发展趋势。中国社会科学院考古研究所王巍所长认为,中国考古学随着自身的发展特别是在以"中华文明探源工程"及其各项阶段性成果的推进与影响下,形成了中国气派和中国特色,正朝着科学化、国际化、社会化、大众化的趋势和方向发展;中国考古学需要与国际考古界加强交流,博采众长,走向世界;作为一级学科的考古学的学科建设应是从文物管理机构到文物考古研究机构所共同担负的责任,需要形成一整套既符合中国实际,又顺应中国考古学发展的二级学科的设置,同时培养能够满足考古学发展需要的人才;公众考古是目前考古学新的发展走向,考古界需要转换意识和机制,培养专业人才,坚持考古的纯洁性和道德规范,以更好地服务社会与遗产保护事业。     

Public Archaeology as Renewer of the Historical Museum

Abstract

Working towards greater public interaction in the museum, and with archaeology reflecting on its contemporary context, traditional collection practices will inevitably be challenged. Archaeologies of the contemporary bring new kinds of artefacts to collections and raises ethical and political questions, since it must interact with the world of the living. Public archaeology, on the other hand, strives to involve people in the making of history, with an aim towards more inclusive, and even democratic, pasts and collections. Three recent research projects at the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities have dealt with these issues. The case studies future memories, archaeologist for a day and public contract archaeology question artefact categorizations, policies for storage and display, as well as database organization, design, and availability. It clearly turned out that the way museums work with collections structure and limit the ways in which audiences can engage with them. To deal more intensively with the public relations of archaeology, and to get more engaged in the contemporary, has definite consequences for the collections and collection practices of archaeological museums. A public-need focus will inevitably give opportunities for archaeologists and institutions to renew their perspectives and practices.     

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.     

AutoCAD在考古绘图中的应用

AutoCAD在考古绘图中的应用目前还比较少,随着时代的发展,现代化的办公设备不断被考古行业所应用。经过一段时间的探索,不是现代化的办公设备不适应考古工作的需要,而是我们考古工作者在观点上不去接受它。本文的主要目的是希望考古界的专家学者们接受并认可它,让AutoCAD 在考古绘图中得到推广,并得以发扬光大,让考古行业也能适应时代的潮流,利用一些新的技术来推动考古事业的飞速发展。     

Transdisciplinary Archaeology and the Future of Archaeological Practice: Citizen Science,Portable Science,Ethical Science

This paper presents a vision and a pathway for the future of archaeological practice, in which several fields that are currently considered distinct, including community-based collaborative archaeology, indigenous archaeology, and applied archaeology, could become the norm. Inspired by personal encounters with some exceptionally open and collaborative archaeology projects, as well as by recent advances in archaeological science, which are starting to make it more portable, this paper sets out an agenda for a more open approach to archaeological practice. It advocates a method of producing knowledge about the past that does not privilege one investigator over another, but gives everyone who is interested and wants to participate an opportunity to do. Specific methodological challenges that are discussed include the need to ‘flip’ the public outreach element of research designs, to embed open participation from the outset by nurturing relationships of mutual respect and trust, and to take advantage of, and improve, the portability of archaeological science, so that it can be done in and by local communities. It is argued here that the opening of archaeological research, including the archaeological sciences, to a wider range of participants, is the most ethical approach to archaeological practice in a pan-disciplinary research environment.     

当代西方考古学研究范式述评

托马斯.库恩认为范式是指科学共同体的信念,这种共同的信念建立在某种公认并成为传统的重大科学成就(如牛顿的万有引力说、达尔文的进化论等等)基础上,为共同体成员提供把握研究对象的概念框架、一套理论和方法论信条,一个可供仿效的解题范例,它规定了一定时期中这门科学的发展     

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.     

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。     

Imagining an Archaeology of the Future: Capitalism and Colonialism Past and Present

This paper explores how doing history backward may allow archaeologists to begin imagining an archaeology of the future. The purpose of such an archaeology would be two-fold: first, to examine the past from the vantage point of the present as a way of better understanding the past as precondition, and second, to critically examine the present with an eye toward imagining how archaeology might be able to influence the future. Drawing on case studies that offer windows on the growth of capitalist production and the continuing impacts of colonialism, this paper seeks to demonstrate the power of using archaeology to link past and present. By focusing on the ideological dimensions of processes such as commoditization and the erasure of indigenous histories I hope to highlight the value of doing history backward and its potential for constructing an archaeology of the future.     

考古学研究的问题来自哪里?

问题通常是研究的中心,而考古学研究的问题来自哪里却长期困扰着中国考古学研究者以及即将进入研究领域的学生,因此有必要梳理考古学研究问题的形式、内容、来源与背景关联。文章侧重指出考古学研究的问题来自于考古学"透物见人"多层次推理的过程,我们需要从外在与内在的关联之中来审视考古学所研究的问题,唯有如此,考古学研究的问题才可能丰富精彩。。     

The Most Wretched of Beings in the Cage of Capitalism

We can no longer afford to ignore the horrendous misery and abuse that humans have inflicted on beings from other species throughout all modern history. We also cannot continue to ignore how those oppressive actions and processes dialectically reverberate across most social dimensions of our modern world. This essay is an effort to promote a heretofore seldom-considered social justice cause in historical archaeology: animal emancipation. I advocate an approach that challenges alienated anthropocentric views, ideologies, and practices in historical archaeology and the wider social and political-economic world. I also offer some ideas on how an archaeology of animal emancipation might appear and some suggestions on preliminary steps we can take to see such an archaeology emerge alongside and in conjuncton with other engaged archaeologies.     

The Ilisu Dam: WAC protests to the British government

This paper focuses on two trends in the debate over the scope and nature of public archaeology. The first is a growing concern to define and codify its disciplinary boundaries. The second trend, arguably in tension with the first, is the ever-widening exploration of how people engage with their past, and the ramifications for the way archaeology, in its widest sense, is practised. It is argued that an excessive preoccupation with demarcating the disciplinary boundaries of public archaeology may risk obscuring a far more important objective, tied to the second trend referred to above. Debates on the relationship between the public, the past, and archaeological practice have resulted in a sea-change in attitudes to the responsibilities of the archaeologist, in the relationship between scientific knowledge and popular and indigenous knowledge, and in ideas about the relevance and usability of the past. Public archaeology is concerned with all these issues. It is argued that, to fulfil this wider vision, public archaeology cannot afford the strictures of a specialized discipline within archaeology, but must remain a persistent, essential, and foundational ingredient in the competencies and sensibilities of every archaeologist and co-worker in the field.     

CONTEMPORARY AND RECENT ARCHAEOLOGY IN PRACTICE

Abstract

The archaeology of the 20th century has been studied since the 1960s, but it is only more recently that explicit theoretical and methodological issues have been explored by the wider archaeological profession. This paper explores some of those issues in the contexts of developer-funded archaeology and community archaeology. Ways in which the archaeology of the more recent past may both help and hinder the discipline are considered, together with the relevance of archaeology to society at large.     

性别考古学研究综述——以中国考古学为中心

中国考古学理论与方法渐趋多元化,而性别考古学却未引起足够的重视。本文梳理了性别考古学产生以来所走过的的历程,尤其对中国考古学中的性别研究进行了较为详细的梳理。本文将中国考古学中的性别研究划分了三个阶段,即20世纪30年代至建国、建国之后至20世纪90年代、90年代至今。其中在第三个阶段,后现代视角的性别考古学真正在中国出现。本文并对中国后现代视角下的性别考古学进行了反思,希冀能够引起学者的注意。     

Strands of indigenism in the Bolivian Andes: competing juridical claims for the ownership and management of indigenous heritage sites in an emerging context of legal pluralism

Within the broader debate to (re)define public archaeology, Grima's (2016) paper calls for an archaeology embedded in public archaeology, thereby focusing on this avenue of expansion instead of its own development as a singular discipline. Not fully rejecting this idea, this short paper aims to situate the debate a step beyond, towards a slightly different approach. Employing a historiographical perspective, it is argued that complementary visions about public archaeology help to enrich the discipline.