Book reviews‐comptes rendus

Peter GARNSEY & Richard SALLER, L'Empire romain. Economie, société, culture, Paris, La Découverte / Textes à l'appui, 1994.

Morris SLAVIN, The Hébertistes to the Guillotine: anatomy of a ‘conspiracy’ in Revolutionary France, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge and London, 1994, xvii + 280 p., ISBN 0–8071–1838–9.

Philippe BURRIN, La France à l'heure allemande, 1940–1944, Paris, Editions du Seuil, 1995.

Emmanuel LE ROY LADURIE, Le siècle des Platter 1499–1628, t.1 “Le mendiant et le professeur”, Paris, Fayard, 1995, 529 p., 170 FF., ISBN 2–213–01444–2.     

The canopic jars of Rameses II: real use revealed by molecular study of organic residues

Four blue-glazed faience jars, on exhibition in the Louvre Museum, are referred to as the canopic jars of Rameses II. Their recent typological re-examination rendered this original assignment questionable. In order to clearly determine their use, a study of two successive organic residues from the canopic jars, using molecular biomarkers analysed by GC-MS and LC-MS and absolute dating by ¹⁴C, was initiated. The results revealed that these two materials were not contemporary to the reign of Rameses II. The first one, scraped from the interior face of one jar, was identified as an unguent made of coniferous oil and animal fat and dated from the Third Intermediate Period. The second one, originally stored with glued linen inside one jar, is likely an embalming substance, made of pure vegetable resin (Pistacia) and dated from the Ptolemaic Period. These results clarify a controversy which has been lasting over a century. The famous blue-glazed faience jars are not the canopic jars of Rameses II but are confirmed as situlae which were reused at least two times: first to store unguents during the Intermediate Period and later to store embalming packages of an unknown person during the Ptolemaic period.     

Views and Commentaries: Composed Versus Simple Pasts: About Archaeologists and Their Partners

Partnership is an equitable exchange of knowledge. In fact, the very nature and indisputability of imported and taught knowledge—the scientific one and here archaeological—question the nature of the traditional and ordinary knowledge of peoples concerned. These two kinds of knowledge differ in the nature of the facts recognized by each of them: scientific facts or tacit common knowledge facts built differently, and in the number and strength of the external allies they succeed in mobilizing. Even if they remain translatable one into the other at a certain cost, they are engaged in a race. The result seems lethal for traditional knowledge unless powerful nonscientific allies, opposed to this leveling standardization, get involved with researchers aware of the stake for the South but also for the North, committed for some centuries to a rationalization supported by science, its technics, and the socioeconomic powers able to fund them.Le partenariat est un échange équitable de savoirs. En réalité, la nature et l'indiscutabilité du savoir importé et inculqué—le savoir scientifique et ici archéologique—met en cause la nature du savoir ordinaire et traditionnel des peuples concernés. Ces deux formes de savoirs diffèrent par la nature des faits reconnus par chacun d'eux: faits scientifiques ou faits du savoir observationnel ordinaire, construits différemment, et par le nombre et la force des alliés extérieurs qu'ils réussissent à se donner. S'ils sont traduisibles l'un dans l'autre à un certaincoût, une course est néanmoins engagée entre eux. L'issue en semble fatale aux savoirs traditionnels à moins que des alliés puissants non-scientifiques, opposés à ce nivellement uniformisateur, s'engagent à leurs côtés avec l'appui des chercheurs conscients d'un enjeu qui concerne certes le Sud, mais aussi le Nord engagé depuis quelques siècles dans une rationalisation appuyée sur la science, ses techniques et les puissances socio-économiques capables de les financer.     

Is Archaeology Developmental?

Archéologie et développement semblent deux notions fort éloignées l'une de l'autre. La première évoque une recherche fondamentale, pure alors que la deuxième parle de santé, économie, éducation, agriculture, pêche, équipement, transports, communications, etc. . . Et pourtant elles se rejoignent dans le bien-être aussi bien matériel que culturel qu'elles sont supposées apporter aux peuples auxquels elles s'adressent. En effet, si elles introduisent, importent des connaissances, des savoirs des techniques et des machines permettant de mieux maîtriser le monde, nourrir et élever les peuples, ces connaissances interfèrent avec la façon dont ceux-ci vivent et ceci depuis longtemps, la façon dont ceux-ci pensent leurs vies et le monde: philosophies, religions, histoires et coutumes dont on pense se débarrasser en les considérant fausses ou irrationnelles. Ainsi apprend-on que laTerre est ronde et tourne autour du soleil, que nous sommes faits de particules, et qu'il faut s'incliner devant les lois de l'évolution. La Science nous a appris et nous apprend toujours la Vérité sur le monde qui nous entoure bien qu'elle ait donné les moyens intellectuels et matériels aux plus grands massacres que l'Histoire ait connus et bien qu'il ne se passe pas de mois sans catastrophes climatiques, industrielles, politiques ou culturelles ou sans sinistres prévisions, comme le nivellement du mondialisme! Ainsi un des problèmes centraux du développement, illustré ici par une réflexion historico-archéologique, réside dans le dialogue (ou son absence) entre ces deux domaines de connaissance: le scientifique, le moderne et l'autochtone, l'ethnique, le non-moderne. Si l'on veut que ce développement concerne la majorité de chaque peuple impliqué, il est de la plus haute importance de s'interroger sur les modalités des échanges et choix de savoirs, leur équilibre et les raisons profondes des désaccords planétaires à ce sujet. Sous cette condition, le Développement deviendra vraiment démocratique.Archaeology and development seem widely separated notions. The former evokes fundamental pure research whereas the latter talks about health, economics, education, agriculture, fishery, equipment, transports, communications, and so on. Nevertheless both focus on the well-being as well material as cultural which they are supposed to bring to people. In fact if they input and import knowledge, technologies and machineries allowing a better mastering of the world, together with feeding and educating people, both development and archaeology interfere with the ways in which people live and many of the things they believe: philosophies, religions, histories, and customs that become defined as false or irrational. Thus we are taught that the Earth is round and revolves around the sun, that we are made of particles, and that we have to bow in front of the laws of evolution. Science taught us Truth and still does, a truth that provided the intellectual and material means for the worst massacres of history. Thus one of the central problems of development, herein illustrated by a historico-archaeological reflection, lies in dialogue (or its absence) between these two knowledge domains: the scientific, modern and the autochtonous, ethnic, nonmodern. If development projects are to benefit all, it is of the utmost importance to wonder about the exchanges and choices of knowledge, their balance, and the deep meanings of globalization. Under such conditions, development will become really democratic.     

A laboratory cave for the study of wall degradation in rock art caves: an implementation in the Vézère area

The aim of this proposal is to present an original approach to the study and preservation of rock art caves. A multidisciplinary study of cave wall alteration will be performed to understand the impact of environmental context on the evolution of wall surfaces. The approach involves the choice of a cave with characteristics similar to painted caves in the studied area (Vézère Valley in Dordogne, France): e.g., cave wall alteration, lithology, morphology, etc. This selected cave is intended to become a laboratory cave, monitored for the acquisition of chemical, physical and biological environmental data on bedrock, air and fluids along with their characteristics. A cave without art or archaeological interest has been chosen specifically to conduct experiments, to make in situ analysis and to obtain samples. The results are to be completed by specific observations in several other caves and compiled in a database.