Rigorous Reasoning, Reflexive Research and the Space for 'Alternative Archaeologies'. Questions for Maritime Archaeological Heritage Management.

As England's heritage policy is shaped around us, it is vital that there is debate, and some consensus, among the maritime archaeological community on core management questions. These include approaches to degrading underwater sites, how to deal with shipwrecks threatened by development, and crucially, who should be driving these decisions. This paper argues that there is a need for self-critical analysis of the meaning of 'heritage'. It problematises the notion of professional archaeologists as 'guardians of the archaeological record' and the conception of 'heritage' formed without reference to ideas of the past being a product of the present and, therefore, the potential for the production of multiple pasts.
© 2007 The Author     

Archaeological Visualization: Towards an Archaeological Information Science (AISc)

This paper reviews and evaluates the potential use of modern visualization techniques in archaeology. It suggests the need to apply and develop such techniques as a central part of any modern archaeological investigation. The use of these methods is associated with wider questions about data representations, in particular, their integration with archaeological theory and their role in facilitating analysis and shaping interpretation. Concern for these questions and with the overall potential that information systems provide to capture, represent, analyze, and model archaeological information suggests the need for a new interdisciplinary focus, Archaeological Information Science. For such a focus to prosper, archaeologists need to develop additional skills that go beyond mere technical ones. They need to become more active in the design and creation of future information archaeological systems. To this end, archaeologists are urged to view this task as a way to extend archaeology in new directions and to recognize that the digital representation and treatment of archaeological information can generate new forms of doing archaeology.     

Global Application of Indigenous Archaeology: Community Based Participatory Research in Turkey

What does Indigenous archaeology offer archaeologists who do not work on Native land, at Indigenous sites, or with Indigenous people? This article demonstrates the broad applicability of Indigenous archaeology and the way it can be utilized by archaeologists working in any locale. Through recent fieldwork in south central Turkey working with a non-indigenous community of local residents near the archaeological site of Çatalhöyük, I demonstrate ways that the theories and methodology of Indigenous archaeology are a useful and relevant part of practice for archaeologists working in areas that are neither on Native land nor involve sites related to indigenous heritage. It also points to the need for further investigation into collaborative methods for the development of a set of best practices within archaeological and heritage management settings.     

Carbon isotope measurement techniques for bone collagen: Notes for the archaeologist

Stable carbon isotope analysis of archaeological human bone collagen is becoming increasingly useful in diet reconstructions. This paper describes, for archaeologists, the techniques that we have found useful in carrying out such analyses, and discusses the requirements for measurement accuracy and inter-laboratory calibration.     

The application of LiDAR-based DEMs on WWII conflict sites in the Netherlands

Airborne Laser Scanning or Light Detecting And Ranging (LiDAR) is quite a new technique for most archaeologists. Digital Elevation Models (DEMs), derived from the LiDAR-data, can be very useful to map archaeological sites in order to get a better overview of what is left and how these remains should be protected and researched further. LiDAR-based DEMs can be extremely useful to conflict archaeologists, especially in the Netherlands where excavation of the remains of World War II (WWII) is often problematic. Using DEMs it is possible to make both an indication of the archaeological and the heritage value of a conflict site. The use of DEMs will improve the prospection, mapping and monitoring of archaeological sites.     

Medieval Britain and Ireland in 1982

ARCHAEOLOGY and art history are closely allied disciplines, particularly for the study of the medieval period. This paper seeks to compare and contrast archaeological with art historical approaches to medieval material culture in terms appropriate to an archaeological audience, much as Stanis?aw Tabaczyński examined the relationships between archaeology and history in the pages of this journal only a few years ago.¹ Rather than emphasize the distinctions between archaeology and art history, an attempt is made to focus on where these two disciplines intersect and how art history at the cusp of the new millennium differs from what archaeologists on both sides of the Atlantic often assume. This seeks to bring recent changes in art historical methods and theory to the attention of medieval archaeologists, suggesting that interdisciplinary cooperation between archaeology and the humanistic disciplines, including art history, should be strengthened.     

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.     

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.     

Consuming the Past: Public Perceptions towards the Discipline of Archaeology in Zimbabwe

This paper discusses the public perceptions of archaeology and the information that archaeologists produce in Zimbabwe. There have been accusations that archaeologists in various parts of the world research for themselves. The products of archaeological research are often presented in academic jargon only accessible to those in the profession. Archaeological research in developing countries has been criticized for having limited involvement, if any, with the local communities in which it is conducted, and fails to address development issues that are important and much more relevant to the concerned societies. The paper discusses the extent to which these accusations are justified in Zimbabwe, focusing on the perceptions that local communities have on archaeology, archaeologists, archaeological remains, archaeological research, and institutions dealing with archaeological cultural heritage in that country. It also discusses why it seems difficult to put into practice some of the suggestions that have been made in the past on how to engage with the public. The paper argues that, although there have been efforts to change the situation, southern African archaeology in general and specifically its practice in Zimbabwe remains largely a preserve of the initiated. It concludes by recommending that writing on archaeological issues be accessible and that research issues should have social relevance. Awareness of local communities in research, outreach activities to schools, and the benefits of archaeological resources for local communities, are crucial means by which the value of the discipline can be appreciated by the public.     

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。     

Archaeological Ethnography,Heritage Management,and Community Archaeology: A Pragmatic Approach from Crete

This article examines the introduction of archaeological ethnography as an approach to establish positioned research and bring context-specific and reflexive considerations into community archaeology projects. It considers recent critiques of heritage management in archaeology and the role of archaeologists as experts in it, contending that smaller and less prominent sites exist in different contexts and pose different problems than large-scale projects usually addressed in the literature. We describe how the ‘Three Peak Sanctuaries of Central Crete’ project, investigating prehistoric Minoan ritual sites, involves communities and stakeholders and what demands the latter pose on experts in the field. Archaeological work is always already implicated in local development projects which create and reproduce power hierarchies. It is therefore important that archaeologists maintain their critical distance from official heritage discourses, as they are materialized in development programmes, while at the same time engaging with local expectations and power struggles; they also have to critically address and position their own assumptions. We use examples from our community archaeology project to propose that these goals can be reached through archaeological ethnographic fieldwork that should precede any archaeological project to inform its methodological decisions, engage stakeholders, and collaboratively shape heritage management strategies.     

As the Sand Settles: Education and Archaeological Tourism on Underwater Cultural Heritage

Underwater cultural heritage sites draw thousands of diving tourists lured by the excitement of shipwrecks and the beauty of the marine environment. Through scientific research and interpretation, archaeologists have the opportunity to educate these visitors about the history of the sites and, perhaps more importantly, about the need for preservation. Effective interpretation leads to appreciation of underwater cultural heritage sites as links to our past, rather than simply as mines of ‘treasure’ to be salvaged for personal gain or sites of interest to be consumed by tourists. This paper describes a selection of interpreted maritime sites from the continental US (with specific reference to Florida), the Caribbean, and the Pacific to show how archaeological tourism, specifically shipwreck preserves and heritage trails, can begin to change mindsets, engage emotions, and inform visitors. It also discusses ways in which we can improve upon assessment, monitoring, and long-term preservation strategies after the trails are created and the sand has settled.     

The Broken Past: Fractals in Archaeology

Many archaeological patterns are fractal. Fractal analysis, therefore, has much to contribute to archaeology. This article offers an introduction to fractal analysis for archaeologists. We explain what fractals are, describe the essential methods of fractal analysis, and present archaeological examples. Some examples have been published previously, while others are presented here for the first time. We also explain the connection between fractal geometry and nonlinear dynamical systems. Fractals are the geometry of complex nonlinear systems. Therefore, fractal analysis is an indispensable method in our efforts to understand nonlinearities in past cultural dynamics.     

金手铲:80年代考古学的寓言(下)

这篇寓言小说叙述了“我”的一次坐飞机旅行的不寻常的经历,以考古学家最常用的发掘工具－一把金色的手铲为线索,以文学性的语言刻画了上世纪80年代三个美国考古学家的生动形象。新生哲学家是一个理论家,自诩为“理论的创造者”,而将他人贬为“理论的消费者”。70年代为骄子以编辑他人的见解为生,擅长将他人的观点变成自己的观点。以上二位从不参加田野发掘,但是却位居要津,声名显赫。老前辈是个传统而又守旧的考古学家,常年奔波在野外考古工地,但由于跟不上形势的发展而被迫提前退了休。他们争论的话题包括：考古学理论、基建考古学、课题考古学、考古学家的道德等等。小说发表后,由于其语言生动风趣,切中了考古学界的种种弊端,立即在学术界引起了轰动,堪考古学史上的一篇旷世奇文。     

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.     

No Compensation Needed: On Archaeology and the Archaeological

The archaeological is regularly perceived in negative terms as lacking and deficient. It is fragmented, static, and crude, a residue of past living societies. Accordingly, much of archaeologists’ efforts are directed toward the amendment of these flaws. The present paper, however, argues that these so-called deficiencies are in fact constitutive absences. Whatever the archaeological lacks, it lacks by definition. It thus follows that working to render the archaeological “complete” is in fact an effort to undo it, to convert it into something else. For the sake of discovering the past, archaeological practice is a sustained effort to rid itself of the very phenomenon that defines it, consequently setting in motion self-perpetuating circularity predicated on deficiency and compensation. The reason for this, it is suggested, is the otherness of the archaeological, being at one and the same time a cultural phenomenon and a fossil record, a social construct and a geological deposit. This condition is so baffling that it is approached by transforming it into something familiar. The paper argues that understanding the archaeological should be archaeology’s first priority. Insofar as it is also the study of the past, this should be predicated on the understanding of the archaeological present.     

The archaeology of place

It is suggested that if archaeologists are to be successful in understanding the organization of past cultural systems they must understand the organizational relationships among places which were differentially used during the operation of past systems. This point is illustrated by observations made among the Nunamiut Eskimo. Against this background it is demonstrated that the two most common forms of archaeological systematics, “assemblage”- versus “type”-based systematics, are not appropriate for the study of places. In the latter case, it is not possible to analyze places as such, while one cannot see places with different “content” as part of a single system in the former. It is concluded that current archaeological systematics are totally inappropriate for studying past systems of adaptation and their evolutionary modification.     

The Direct Historical Approach, Analogical Reasoning, and Theory in Americanist Archaeology

Prior to the early 1950s, Americanist archaeologists, given their interest in chronology, routinely searched for direct historical connections between ethnographically documented cultures and archaeological cultures. In those instances where clear evolutionary connections existed between ethnographic and prehistoric cultures, the ethnic affinities of the latter could be assessed, chronologies of prehistoric cultures could be built, and ethnographic descendant cultures could be used as analogs of prehistoric ancestral cultures. The latter became known as specific historical analogy, and it stands in contrast to general comparative analogy, in which no detectable evolutionary connection exists between archaeological subjects and ethnographic sources. The theory underpinning the use of specific historical analogs is Darwinian evolutionism, or descent with modification; thus similarities between ethnographic sources and archaeological subjects are homologous. By midcentury, with the problem of chronology behind them, archaeologists began to address anthropological concerns. Darwinian evolutionism was replaced by the theory of orthogenesis as an explanation of culture change, and concomitantly specific historical analogy was replaced by general comparative analogy, in which similarities between ethnographic sources and archaeological subjects are the result of convergence. For over a century anthropologists and archaeologists have mixed elements of the two theories.     

Archaeological Research in Conflict Areas: Practice and Responsibilities

This paper discusses the relationships between ethics and archaeological fieldwork. It represents the author’s reflections on her own archaeological work in an area, Lebanon, which has in recent times been wracked by considerable violence. The stimulus for the paper came mainly from the question posed by the session organizers and editors of this issue: what would constitute ethical archaeological practice, especially in situations of war and violence but also in cultural contexts in which different approaches to understanding and valuing historical knowledge predominate than those typically held by archaeologists. Two concrete examples from my own fieldwork in Beirut and Kamid el-Loz make clear how the scientific interests of historical-archaeological research and those of people who live in the research area can be reconciled despite specific instances in which they diverge.     

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.