{"title":"Editorial","authors":"Anders Högberg, Anna Lihammer","doi":"10.37718/csa.2012.00","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.37718/csa.2012.00","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38457,"journal":{"name":"Current Swedish Archaeology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48714429","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I would like to start by congratulating Liv Nilsson Stutz on her impressive, wide-ranging review which weaves some important points into a cogent argument for an increasingly transdisciplinary archaeology of death and burial. I agree with most of her arguments and will take them as grounds for further exploration. I will sound a quiet note of caution about crystallizing (sub)disciplinary boundaries and favour asking questions rather than defining disciplinary territories.
{"title":"Keep Asking Questions","authors":"C. Fowler","doi":"10.37718/CSA.2016.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.37718/CSA.2016.03","url":null,"abstract":"I would like to start by congratulating Liv Nilsson Stutz on her impressive, wide-ranging review which weaves some important points into a cogent argument for an increasingly transdisciplinary archaeology of death and burial. I agree with most of her arguments and will take them as grounds for further exploration. I will sound a quiet note of caution about crystallizing (sub)disciplinary boundaries and favour asking questions rather than defining disciplinary territories.","PeriodicalId":38457,"journal":{"name":"Current Swedish Archaeology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46389673","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As Jan Apel and Kim Darmark rightly observe, the conceptual approaches that we employ in archaeology have fundamental implications, affecting not only the questions that we ask about the past, but the way that we understand both our evidence and the place of our investigation within contemporary society. Theory matters, and debates like the present one are critical to the continued vitality of our discipline. However, I disagree strongly with their arguments for an evolutionary archaeology of material culture, which seem to me to rest upon a series of misapprehensions. It is fair to say that the natural and human sciences have developed distinct ways of understanding the world, since they are interested in answering different questions, and that these can be seen as complementary, if ultimately mutually incommensurate. They reveal different aspects of reality. The attraction of a single framework that could integrate the study of cultural and biological phenomena is undeniable, since there is only one world, while the division between culture and nature is an acknowledged fabrication. However, when such a thing is attempted it all too often results in a form of reductionism, and this appears to be what Apel and Darmark are offering here. They give themselves away when they repeatedly claim that the perspectives on culture offered by the social sciences have had the effect of'marginalising' the topic. Now, thousands upon thousands of scholars in anthropology, sociology, cultural history, social geography, politics, art history and numerous other disciplines cur-
{"title":"Response to Apel and Darmark: Evolution and Material Culture","authors":"Julian Thomas","doi":"10.37718/CSA.2009.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.37718/CSA.2009.04","url":null,"abstract":"As Jan Apel and Kim Darmark rightly observe, the conceptual approaches that we employ in archaeology have fundamental implications, affecting not only the questions that we ask about the past, but the way that we understand both our evidence and the place of our investigation within contemporary society. Theory matters, and debates like the present one are critical to the continued vitality of our discipline. However, I disagree strongly with their arguments for an evolutionary archaeology of material culture, which seem to me to rest upon a series of misapprehensions. It is fair to say that the natural and human sciences have developed distinct ways of understanding the world, since they are interested in answering different questions, and that these can be seen as complementary, if ultimately mutually incommensurate. They reveal different aspects of reality. The attraction of a single framework that could integrate the study of cultural and biological phenomena is undeniable, since there is only one world, while the division between culture and nature is an acknowledged fabrication. However, when such a thing is attempted it all too often results in a form of reductionism, and this appears to be what Apel and Darmark are offering here. They give themselves away when they repeatedly claim that the perspectives on culture offered by the social sciences have had the effect of'marginalising' the topic. Now, thousands upon thousands of scholars in anthropology, sociology, cultural history, social geography, politics, art history and numerous other disciplines cur-","PeriodicalId":38457,"journal":{"name":"Current Swedish Archaeology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43049564","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jan Apel and Kim Darmark boldly deliver an argument to address what they regard as shortcomings in contemporary Scandinavian archaeology —which they describe as narrative, fragmented and anti-scientific to the point of being effectively marginalized from other disciplines. To come to terms with this, they call for theoretical debate and propose the introduction of evolutionary issues in Swedish archaeology. The proposition is given an ambitious scope. An evolutionary perspective will, according to the authors, "have a fundamental effect on the questions asked, the taxonomies employed, and the role of archaeology as a discipline. "We are, it would seem, facing a potential paradigm shift in Scandinavian archaeology. While I warmly welcome the call for theoretical debate, I am not convinced by the authors' argument that evolutionary archaeology is the answer to the wide set of questions that archaeology encompasses today. To borrow from the authors' own vocabulary, I am not convinced that Darwinian evolutionary perspectives will have the replicative success the authors hope for in archaeological theory and debate. This, I argue, is not because the ideas are altogether irrelevant or uninteresting, but because they simply are not fit to inhabit the many niches of contemporary archaeological thought and may even contribute to marginalizing the discipline even further. I want to make it clear that my skepticism does not reside in a kneejerk reaction to natural scientific perspectives in the quest to understand humanity and human history. For example, I sympathize with
Jan Apel和Kim Darmark大胆地提出了一个论点，以解决他们认为的当代斯堪的纳维亚考古学的缺点——他们将其描述为叙事性的、碎片化的和反科学的，以至于实际上被其他学科边缘化。为了接受这一点，他们呼吁进行理论辩论，并建议在瑞典考古学中引入进化问题。这项提议的范围很广。根据作者的说法，进化论视角将“对所提出的问题、所采用的分类法以及考古学作为一门学科的作用产生根本影响。”我们似乎正面临着斯堪的纳维亚考古学的潜在范式转变。虽然我热烈欢迎进行理论辩论的呼吁，但我不相信作者的论点，即进化考古学是当今考古学所包含的一系列广泛问题的答案。借用作者自己的词汇，我不相信达尔文进化论观点会在考古理论和辩论中取得作者所希望的复制性成功。我认为，这并不是因为这些想法完全无关或无趣，而是因为它们根本不适合当代考古思想的许多领域，甚至可能导致该学科进一步边缘化。我想明确一点，在理解人类和人类历史的过程中，我的怀疑并不是对自然科学观点的本能反应。例如，我很同情
{"title":"Response to Apel and Darmark: Evolution and Material Culture","authors":"L. N. Stutz","doi":"10.37718/CSA.2009.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.37718/CSA.2009.03","url":null,"abstract":"Jan Apel and Kim Darmark boldly deliver an argument to address what they regard as shortcomings in contemporary Scandinavian archaeology —which they describe as narrative, fragmented and anti-scientific to the point of being effectively marginalized from other disciplines. To come to terms with this, they call for theoretical debate and propose the introduction of evolutionary issues in Swedish archaeology. The proposition is given an ambitious scope. An evolutionary perspective will, according to the authors, \"have a fundamental effect on the questions asked, the taxonomies employed, and the role of archaeology as a discipline. \"We are, it would seem, facing a potential paradigm shift in Scandinavian archaeology. While I warmly welcome the call for theoretical debate, I am not convinced by the authors' argument that evolutionary archaeology is the answer to the wide set of questions that archaeology encompasses today. To borrow from the authors' own vocabulary, I am not convinced that Darwinian evolutionary perspectives will have the replicative success the authors hope for in archaeological theory and debate. This, I argue, is not because the ideas are altogether irrelevant or uninteresting, but because they simply are not fit to inhabit the many niches of contemporary archaeological thought and may even contribute to marginalizing the discipline even further. I want to make it clear that my skepticism does not reside in a kneejerk reaction to natural scientific perspectives in the quest to understand humanity and human history. For example, I sympathize with","PeriodicalId":38457,"journal":{"name":"Current Swedish Archaeology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41526738","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Evolution is, and has been throughout the history of archaeology, a tempting perspective for many archaeologists. However, unlike most other sciences archaeology has seldom had to stand responsible for the political and social consequences of a wrongly used evolutionary theory. Instead archaeology has fed and tempted politicians, scientists from other disciplines, the media, the public, popular culture and so forth with its evolutionary hypotheses that are mostly related to a remote Stone Age, a time period often described in a very simplistic and straightforward manner. It is respectable that Apel and Darmark agree that older cultural evolutionary theory had problematic faults. However, in their opinion the evolutionary theory of today has a high scientific level and any faults done in the past will never be repeated. In this reply I will show that this is not the case. I will also explain why cultural evolutionary theory is a dangerous temptation that should undergo a serious examination by an international board of experts in ethics and scientific theory. To give some perspectives on the depth of the problem, let me start with a question: we would hardly make use of today's cultural evolutionary theory to explain the election of Barack Obama, so why use it on a remote Stone Age? In a liberal world that accepts different interpretations there is always a risk that some cannot resist the temptation to dominate. I am not stressing that this is what Apel and Darmark wish to do, but the perspective that they argue for cannot exist side by side with other
{"title":"Response to Apel and Darmark: Evolution and Material Culture","authors":"Johan Hegardt","doi":"10.37718/CSA.2009.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.37718/CSA.2009.02","url":null,"abstract":"Evolution is, and has been throughout the history of archaeology, a tempting perspective for many archaeologists. However, unlike most other sciences archaeology has seldom had to stand responsible for the political and social consequences of a wrongly used evolutionary theory. Instead archaeology has fed and tempted politicians, scientists from other disciplines, the media, the public, popular culture and so forth with its evolutionary hypotheses that are mostly related to a remote Stone Age, a time period often described in a very simplistic and straightforward manner. It is respectable that Apel and Darmark agree that older cultural evolutionary theory had problematic faults. However, in their opinion the evolutionary theory of today has a high scientific level and any faults done in the past will never be repeated. In this reply I will show that this is not the case. I will also explain why cultural evolutionary theory is a dangerous temptation that should undergo a serious examination by an international board of experts in ethics and scientific theory. To give some perspectives on the depth of the problem, let me start with a question: we would hardly make use of today's cultural evolutionary theory to explain the election of Barack Obama, so why use it on a remote Stone Age? In a liberal world that accepts different interpretations there is always a risk that some cannot resist the temptation to dominate. I am not stressing that this is what Apel and Darmark wish to do, but the perspective that they argue for cannot exist side by side with other","PeriodicalId":38457,"journal":{"name":"Current Swedish Archaeology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49045066","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Editorial","authors":"Fredrik Fahlander, Anders Högberg","doi":"10.37718/csa.2016.00","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.37718/csa.2016.00","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38457,"journal":{"name":"Current Swedish Archaeology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44537002","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Editorial","authors":"M. Hansen, Anna Källén","doi":"10.37718/csa.2010.00","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.37718/csa.2010.00","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38457,"journal":{"name":"Current Swedish Archaeology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47115137","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article the authors suggest that chaos theory can provide us with a new perspective on archaeology. Newtonian thinking is predominant in archaeology, as well as in the humanities in general. This results in the hegemony of analytic methods and a linear way of thinking on cause and effect. However, chaos theory has shown that behind many phenomena that may seem random lies order. Since these complex dynamic systems cannot be approached by linear methods we must tum to chaos theory and non-linear science. Chaos theory has major consequences for our view of determinism and predictability.
{"title":"Beyond Newtonian Thinking- Towards a Non-linear Archaeology - Applying Chaos Theory to Archaeology","authors":"Henrik Gerding, D. Ingemark","doi":"10.37718/CSA.1997.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.37718/CSA.1997.04","url":null,"abstract":"In this article the authors suggest that chaos theory can provide us with a new perspective on archaeology. Newtonian thinking is predominant in archaeology, as well as in the humanities in general. This results in the hegemony of analytic methods and a linear way of thinking on cause and effect. However, chaos theory has shown that behind many phenomena that may seem random lies order. Since these complex dynamic systems cannot be approached by linear methods we must tum to chaos theory and non-linear science. Chaos theory has major consequences for our view of determinism and predictability.","PeriodicalId":38457,"journal":{"name":"Current Swedish Archaeology","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91396880","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Editorial","authors":"Fredrik Fahlander, Anders Högberg","doi":"10.37718/csa.2014.00","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.37718/csa.2014.00","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38457,"journal":{"name":"Current Swedish Archaeology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46884325","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：