考古学研究方法散论--评塔尔格伦的《史前考古学方法》

从上个世纪30年代起,欧美不断有考古学家著文对长期停留于文化史研究的考古学及其类型方法提出强烈的批评,塔尔格伦教授的<史前考古学方法>就是其中较具代表性的一篇.我国的考古类型学也经历了类似的发展历程.虽然已有不少学者对类型方法进行过探讨,但其中仍存在一些不足之处分型分式的标准不严、实践滞后于理论和研究方法过于单一等.我们应该建立一个客观的研究方法和理论体系以促进中国考古学的进一步发展.     

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。     

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.”     

Are We Postcolonial Yet? Tales from the Battlefield

This paper questions whether archaeological thinking and practice have become post-colonial and ethically and politically aware and sophisticated, and comments on a number of instances (militarization of archaeology, sponsorship by ethically tainted global corporations, global publishing practices, the declaration of western metropolitan museums as ??universal??) where neo-colonial regimes of truth and practice are present, even amongst groups and organisations that advocate de-colonisation. It proposes that new theoretical insights are generated at the moments of inevitable and at times necessary confrontations with these neo-colonial regimes. Finally, it conjures up the figure of new global immigrant in order to not only highlight their plight and the need for archaeologists to fight racism and xenophobia, but also to point out that the exilic position, the on-going questioning of our deep-left attachments to nation-states, institutions and structures, provides the space for radical critique and for new ontological possibilities to emerge.     

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。     

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.     

Scale Locality and the Caribbean Historical Archaeology

Historical archaeologists have become increasingly concerned with regional analysis focusing on the interconnections between different archaeological sites in order to develop a better sense of social relations. This development is in part due to the realization of many years of research and subsequent topical and theoretical syntheses. It also reflects a shifting concern in research towards fluidity of landscape and translocality (Hicks in World Archaeol 37:373–391, 2005; Lightfoot K (2005). University of California, Berkeley; Orser CE Jr (1996) A historical archaeology of the modern world. Plenum, New York; Wilkie LA, Farnsworth P (2005) Sampling many pots: an archaeology of memory and tradition at a Bahamian Plantation. University Press of Florida, Gainesville). The Caribbean as a world area highlights the need for broader regional analyses where tensions between local specificities and global/translocal processes are mediated. These tensions have been explored through discussions of identity, agency, colonialism and political economy. In this volume we explore the utility of scale of analysis in the framing of colonial landscapes between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries in the Caribbean. Contributors to this volume have concentrated on the ways in which scale as a concept is explicitly analyzed or implicitly employed to shape how we as archaeologists focus on topics associated with the African Diaspora in the Caribbean to draw out narratives of everyday life.     

Places in Interaction: The National Archaeological Park Project as an Integrated Approach to Public Archaeology in China

The aim of this paper is to re-examine how concepts of public archaeology have been established and developed in varying social and political contexts in China, and how the recent national archaeological park project is structured as an important approach for improving public-archaeology relationships and promoting the public uses of archaeology. Since all archaeological activities in China are exclusively regulated by the state, all archaeological resources are administered for the benefit of the public. As such, concepts of public archaeology demonstrate the efforts of Chinese archaeologists to re-evaluate public-archaeology relationships and uses of archaeology through public engagement as well as archaeological communications with the public. The national archaeological park project was launched in 2006 to expand the practice of archaeology with the creation of archaeological communications, public space, and community-driven programmes. The project facilitates multiple perspectives on public archaeology practice through public education, community cohesion, re-creation of public space, and local economic development.     

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.     

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.     

Twenty-First-Century Historical Archaeology

The practice of historical archaeology has exploded over the past two decades, and especially since 2000. Methodological advances and new theoretical insights mean that archaeological research requires periodic evaluation, and this overview builds on the work of three earlier assessors of the discipline. Here, I concentrate on four areas of research currently being pursued by historical archaeologists: analytical scale, capitalism, social inequality, and heritage and memory. I conclude that historical archaeologists have made major strides in understanding the modern world and that future research promises to offer diverse perspectives that will deepen our appreciation for how the past influences the present.     

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.     

Thinking Through Networks: A Review of Formal Network Methods in Archaeology

This review aims to expose the potential of formal network methods for archaeology by tracing the origins of the academic traditions, network models, and techniques that have been most influential to archaeologists. A brief discussion of graph theoretic applications in archaeology reveals how graph visualization and analysis was used since the 1960s in a very similar way to later network analysis applications, but did not seem to have influenced the more widespread adoption of network techniques over the past decade. These recent archaeological applications have been strongly influenced by two academic traditions, social network analysis and sociophysics. The most influential and promising techniques and models adopted from these traditions are critically discussed. This review reveals some general trends which are considered to be the result of two critical issues that will need to be addressed in future archaeological network analysis: (1) a general unawareness of the historicity and diversity of formal network methods both within and outside the archaeological discipline has resulted in a very limited methodological scope; (2) the adoption or development of network methods has very rarely been driven by specific archaeological research questions and is dominated by a few popular models and techniques, which has in some cases resulted in a routinized explanatory process. This review illustrates, however, the great potential of formal network methods for archaeology and argues that, if this potential is to be applied in a critical way, a broad multidisciplinary scope is necessary and specific archaeological research contexts should dominate applications.     

Trading Shovels for Controllers: A Brief Exploration of the Portrayal of Archaeology in Video Games

Archaeology has been a persistent theme for video games, from the long-running Indiana Jones and Lara Croft franchises to more recent uses of archaeology in games like Destiny and World of Warcraft. In these games, archaeology is often portrayed as a search for treasure among lost worlds that leads to looting and the destruction of cultural heritage. In this article, we review the current state of archaeological video games, including mainstream and educational games. While this is not an exhaustive discussion, it provides an introduction and overview to the current landscape. We propose that an understanding of current popular archaeological video games is important to archaeologists for three reasons: (1) it is a source of potentially dangerous misconceptions about the discipline that must be addressed; (2) it can be a source of inspiration for funding and a means to recruit new students to the discipline; and (3) games can be leveraged as teaching moments in classrooms and public discussions. It is important that archaeologists recognize the ways the discipline is being portrayed in such public contexts, in order to maximize the potential benefit for archaeology and to prevent further misconceptions about the subject.     

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.     

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.     

Public Challenges and the Private Ways of State Archaeology: the Case of Greece

Abstract

Since its emergence Greek archaeology has been run exclusively by the state for political and economic reasons. The relevant legislation has always granted the Archaeological Service enough power to establish it as one of the most authoritative services in the public sector. I argue that the conditions under which archaeology is practised in Greece are increasingly changing. Agents operating at an international, national and local level are challenging the exclusive rights of the state in archaeological heritage management and demanding their views on protection are acknowledged. An overview of recently undertaken initiatives and research projects, as reported in the press and on websites, demonstrates an increasing demand for a more inclusive and public approach to the management of archaeological heritage. I also argue that Greek archaeologists are aware of the potential value of a public engagement with the discipline, but for different reasons — such as conservatism, bureaucracy and lack of means — do not act on it to the extent that they should. Finally, the paper confronts Greek state archaeology as an exclusive system of archaeological heritage management, and puts forward the importance of the local rather than the global public (i.e. tourism — where the emphasis of archaeological management in Greece currently lies).     

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.     

Education in Maritime Archaeology: The Egyptian Case Study

The investigation of archaeological sites of maritime nature started in Egypt more than a century ago, with the discovery of the Dahshur boats (Haldane 1998) and the ancient harbour of Pharos (Jondet 1912); however, education in maritime and underwater archaeology in Egypt is still in its infancy. This paper will look at the development of maritime archaeology in Egypt as a scientific discipline and the progress achieved to date in providing Egyptian archaeologists with education and training in aspects of maritime archaeology and underwater cultural heritage.     

Cultural biographies, cognitive landscapes and dirty old bits of boat:'theory' in maritime archaeology

Advances in the use of archaeological theory by maritime archaeologists are proposed after a brief review of recent literature on the subject. A disparity in theoretical discussion between maritime and'mainstream' archaeology is noted and reasons for this discussed, before two areas are explored where mutual advances might be made: an'engendered' maritime archaeology and'Marxist' perspectives. The paper concludes by considering the development of specific theoretical approaches unique to the maritime sphere.