{"title":"Resolving the Question of a Hiatus between the Paleolithic and Neolithic: Nineteenth-Century Science and a Problem in Human Prehistory","authors":"M. Goodrum","doi":"10.5334/BHA-657","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/BHA-657","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41664,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the History of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43052348","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":"Sharing the Spoils: The Historical use of Loans and Gifts as Collecting Methodologies for Building Biblical Archaeology Teaching Collections","authors":"J. Hirsch","doi":"10.5334/bha-662","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/bha-662","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41664,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the History of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71065373","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}
The years of the British Mandate to Palestine witnessed accelerated development in numerous realms, including the thriving of archaeological research. For the first time, a local department of antiquities was established and an impressive museum was opened. During this period, excavations were also conducted by resourcerich research teams (Ben-Arieh 1999a; 1999b). The leap in research also affectedmembers of the country’s Jewish population (Yishuv). In 1920, the initial excavation of Hamat Tiberias was conducted by the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society, and 1925 marked the establishment of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which quickly began to take part in the excavations of the ‘Third Wall’ in Jerusalem (Ben-Arieh 2001). The increasing strength of the Yishuv also resulted in a growing number of studies, and more than 20 significant excavations were carried out by Jewish archaeologists who lived in the country during the Mandate. As a result of the violent clashes and the riots that occurred in Palestine over the future of the country and the authorities’ treatment of its inhabitants, British Royal Commissions were established to consider the situation. The various conclusions of these bodies included a call to partition Palestine, while leaving certain zones subject to different levels of international administration (Biger 2004). The commissions had little impact on the selection of the archaeological research sites of members of the Yishuv, which were being conducted throughout Palestine. For example, between 1940 and 1942, Moshe Stekelis (1993) excavated a prehistoric site in Bethlehem, and in 1941 he conducted exploratory excavations at Tinshemet Cave (Mugharet Al Watwat), located near Shuqba Cave in Wadi en-Natuf in western Samaria (Stekelis 1942) (Figure 1). The violent events themselves had significant influence on the excavations and resulted in their cessation on more than one occasion. However, as long as Palestine was not partitioned, it continued to be researched as a single unit. The outbreak of World War II resulted in a decline in the activity of the foreign research delegations and schools, raising the profile of local Jewish researchers, who never stopped excavating. They even continued a number of unexpectedly halted excavations that had been started by their foreign counterparts (as was the case of Stekelis’s excavation in Bethlehem). Jewish excavation enterprises, such as the Beit She’arim dig and the discovery of ancient synagogues, were incorporated into the constructing of the Zionist narrative. The close relationship between archaeology and nationalism that began to emerge at the time only intensified after the establishment of the state of Israel (Feige and Shiloni Ariel University, IL Corresponding author: Mordechay Lash (ml0524239691@gmail.com) Lash, M, et al. 2020. Underground – Archaeological Research in the West Bank, 1948–1967: Management, Complexity, and Israeli Involvement. Bulletin of the History of Archa
英国对巴勒斯坦的委任统治见证了许多领域的加速发展，包括考古研究的蓬勃发展。当地首次成立了一个文物部门，并开设了一座令人印象深刻的博物馆。在此期间，资源丰富的研究团队也进行了挖掘（Ben Arieh 1999a；1999b）。研究的飞跃也影响了该国犹太人口的组成部分（Yishuv）。1920年，犹太-巴勒斯坦探索协会对Hamat Tiberias进行了初步发掘，1925年标志着耶路撒冷希伯来大学的成立，该大学迅速开始参与耶路撒冷“第三堵墙”的发掘（Ben Arieh，2001）。伊舒夫人力量的增强也导致了越来越多的研究，在委任统治期间居住在该国的犹太考古学家进行了20多次重要的挖掘。由于巴勒斯坦发生了暴力冲突和骚乱，涉及国家的未来和当局对待居民的方式，因此成立了英国皇家委员会来审议这一情况。这些机构的各种结论包括呼吁分割巴勒斯坦，同时让某些地区接受不同级别的国际管理（Biger 2004）。这些委员会对在整个巴勒斯坦进行的伊舒夫人考古研究遗址的选择几乎没有影响。例如，1940年至1942年间，Moshe Stekelis（1993）在伯利恒发掘了一处史前遗址，1941年，他在位于撒马利亚西部Wadi en Natuf Shuqba洞穴附近的Tinshemet洞穴（Mugharet Al Watwat）进行了探索性发掘（Stekelis 1942）（图1）。暴力事件本身对挖掘工作产生了重大影响，并不止一次导致挖掘工作停止。然而，只要巴勒斯坦没有被分割，它就继续作为一个单一的单元进行研究。第二次世界大战的爆发导致外国研究代表团和学校的活动减少，提高了当地犹太研究人员的知名度，他们从未停止过挖掘。他们甚至继续进行了一些由外国同行开始的意外停止的挖掘（就像Stekelis在伯利恒的挖掘一样）。犹太挖掘企业，如Beit She’arim挖掘和古代犹太教堂的发现，都被纳入了犹太复国主义叙事的构建中。考古与当时开始出现的民族主义之间的密切关系在以色列国成立后才得以加强（费格和希洛尼·阿里尔大学，伊利诺伊州通讯作者：Mordechay Lash(ml0524239691@gmail.com)Lash，M等人，2020。地下——约旦河西岸考古研究，1948–1967：管理、复杂性和以色列的参与。《考古史公报》，30（1）：8，第1-11页。DOI：https://doi.org/10.5334/bha-650考古史公报
{"title":"Underground – Archaeological Research in the West Bank, 1948–1967: Management, Complexity, and Israeli Involvement","authors":"Mordechay Lash, Yossi Goldstein, Itzhaq Shai","doi":"10.5334/bha-650","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/bha-650","url":null,"abstract":"The years of the British Mandate to Palestine witnessed accelerated development in numerous realms, including the thriving of archaeological research. For the first time, a local department of antiquities was established and an impressive museum was opened. During this period, excavations were also conducted by resourcerich research teams (Ben-Arieh 1999a; 1999b). The leap in research also affectedmembers of the country’s Jewish population (Yishuv). In 1920, the initial excavation of Hamat Tiberias was conducted by the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society, and 1925 marked the establishment of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which quickly began to take part in the excavations of the ‘Third Wall’ in Jerusalem (Ben-Arieh 2001). The increasing strength of the Yishuv also resulted in a growing number of studies, and more than 20 significant excavations were carried out by Jewish archaeologists who lived in the country during the Mandate. As a result of the violent clashes and the riots that occurred in Palestine over the future of the country and the authorities’ treatment of its inhabitants, British Royal Commissions were established to consider the situation. The various conclusions of these bodies included a call to partition Palestine, while leaving certain zones subject to different levels of international administration (Biger 2004). The commissions had little impact on the selection of the archaeological research sites of members of the Yishuv, which were being conducted throughout Palestine. For example, between 1940 and 1942, Moshe Stekelis (1993) excavated a prehistoric site in Bethlehem, and in 1941 he conducted exploratory excavations at Tinshemet Cave (Mugharet Al Watwat), located near Shuqba Cave in Wadi en-Natuf in western Samaria (Stekelis 1942) (Figure 1). The violent events themselves had significant influence on the excavations and resulted in their cessation on more than one occasion. However, as long as Palestine was not partitioned, it continued to be researched as a single unit. The outbreak of World War II resulted in a decline in the activity of the foreign research delegations and schools, raising the profile of local Jewish researchers, who never stopped excavating. They even continued a number of unexpectedly halted excavations that had been started by their foreign counterparts (as was the case of Stekelis’s excavation in Bethlehem). Jewish excavation enterprises, such as the Beit She’arim dig and the discovery of ancient synagogues, were incorporated into the constructing of the Zionist narrative. The close relationship between archaeology and nationalism that began to emerge at the time only intensified after the establishment of the state of Israel (Feige and Shiloni Ariel University, IL Corresponding author: Mordechay Lash (ml0524239691@gmail.com) Lash, M, et al. 2020. Underground – Archaeological Research in the West Bank, 1948–1967: Management, Complexity, and Israeli Involvement. Bulletin of the History of Archa","PeriodicalId":41664,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the History of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5334/bha-650","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46730414","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}
The British administration of Cyprus from July 1878 marked the beginning of the end of the ‘mythical age’ of Cypriot archaeology, as it was characterised by the British archaeologist John Linton Myres (1869–1954) (Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899). Prior to this, Ottoman laws governing the excavation and export of antiquities were in operation, but not always consistently enforced. Some collectors managed to remove huge numbers of objects, most notoriously the Italian-American consul Luigi Palma di Cesnola (1832–1904) whose Cypriot antiquities formed the founding collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and his brother Alessandro (1839–1914) (Goring 1988; Kiely and Ulbrich 2012; Masson 1992). After the advent of the British administration, the official position was initially to ban private excavation (Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899: vi), though this ban appears to have been lifted around May 1879 (Stanley-Price 2001: 269). Small-scale exploration was undertaken by the German archaeologist Max Ohnefalsch-Richter, on behalf of museums and private individuals (Stanley-Price 2001, 2018). The first British-led larger scale excavations under the new regime, in 1882, were proposed by Lieutenant Herbert Kitchener (1850–1916), Director of Survey, and supervised by the colonial administrator George Gordon Hake (1847–1903). Funded by the South Kensington Museum rather than the British Museum, they focused on obtaining aesthetically pleasing objects rather than archaeological recording (Bailey 1965; Kiely 2011). The Cyprus Museum, the first national institution for discovering, storing, displaying and studying the island’s antiquities, was founded in 1882, and under the Ottoman Law of Antiquities of 1874 had first claim on one-third of finds excavated through private initiatives, and ownership of all the products of any excavations it sponsored (StanleyPrice 2001: 270). However, it was stymied by lack of funds, affecting its ability to undertake excavations, provide proper facilities for storage and display, and ensure that its dues from private excavations were collected (Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899: vi). The early years of the British administration were characterised by an unfocused and casual approach to excavating antiquities. For the new administration, grappling with a range of complex issues and hampered by limited funding, proper governance of antiquities was not a high priority. Meanwhile, military and civilian officials posted to Cyprus purchased antiquities from local excavators and collectors and explored its archaeology, considered to be one of the leisure activities afforded by the island, in a spirit of idle enquiry. Spending a limited amount of time on the island – sometimes just a few months – these temporary residents lacked the opportunities of earlier consular collectors and local antiquarians to build up expertise and an appreciation of the island’s history. University of Leeds, GB anna.h.reeve@gmail.com Reeve,
1878年7月英国对塞浦路斯的管理标志着塞浦路斯考古学“神话时代”的结束，正如英国考古学家John Linton Myres(1869-1954)所描述的那样(Myres and ohnefalch - richter 1899)。在此之前，管理文物挖掘和出口的奥斯曼法律一直在运作，但并不总是始终如一地执行。一些收藏家设法移走了大量物品，最臭名昭著的是意大利裔美国领事路易吉·帕尔马·迪·切斯诺拉(Luigi Palma di Cesnola, 1832-1904)和他的兄弟亚历山德罗(Alessandro, 1839-1914)(戈林1988;Kiely and Ulbrich 2012;马森1992)。在英国政府上台后，官方最初的立场是禁止私人挖掘(Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899: vi)，尽管这一禁令似乎在1879年5月左右被解除了(Stanley-Price 2001: 269)。德国考古学家Max Ohnefalsch-Richter代表博物馆和个人进行了小规模的勘探(Stanley-Price 2001, 2018)。1882年，英国领导的第一次大规模发掘是在新政权下进行的，由测量主任赫伯特·基奇纳中尉(1850-1916)提议，并由殖民地行政长官乔治·戈登·哈克(1847-1903)监督。由南肯辛顿博物馆而不是大英博物馆资助，他们专注于获得美学上令人愉悦的物品，而不是考古记录(Bailey 1965;基利2011)。塞浦路斯博物馆成立于1882年，是第一个发现、储存、展示和研究该岛古物的国家机构，根据1874年的奥斯曼古物法，塞浦路斯博物馆首先对通过私人倡议挖掘的三分之一的发现拥有所有权，并对其赞助的任何挖掘的所有产品拥有所有权(StanleyPrice 2001: 270)。然而，由于缺乏资金，它受到了阻碍，影响了它进行挖掘的能力，提供适当的储存和展示设施，并确保其从私人挖掘中收取的费用(Myres和Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899: vi)。英国政府早期的特点是挖掘文物的方法不集中和随意。对于新一届政府来说，要应对一系列复杂的问题，并受到资金有限的阻碍，对文物的妥善管理并不是当务之急。与此同时，派驻塞浦路斯的军事和文职官员从当地的挖掘者和收藏家那里购买古物，并本着无所事事的调查精神探索其考古，这被认为是该岛提供的休闲活动之一。这些临时居民在岛上的时间有限，有时只有几个月，他们缺乏早期领事收藏家和当地古物学家积累专业知识和对该岛历史的欣赏的机会。英国利兹大学anna.h.reeve@gmail.com Reeve, A. 2020。斯科特-斯蒂文森家族在塞浦路斯的考古活动，1878-1883。考古通报，30(1):7,pp. 1 - 13。DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/bha-629考古学历史公报
{"title":"The Archaeological Activities of the Scott-Stevensons in Cyprus, 1878–1883","authors":"A. Reeve","doi":"10.5334/bha-629","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/bha-629","url":null,"abstract":"The British administration of Cyprus from July 1878 marked the beginning of the end of the ‘mythical age’ of Cypriot archaeology, as it was characterised by the British archaeologist John Linton Myres (1869–1954) (Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899). Prior to this, Ottoman laws governing the excavation and export of antiquities were in operation, but not always consistently enforced. Some collectors managed to remove huge numbers of objects, most notoriously the Italian-American consul Luigi Palma di Cesnola (1832–1904) whose Cypriot antiquities formed the founding collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and his brother Alessandro (1839–1914) (Goring 1988; Kiely and Ulbrich 2012; Masson 1992). After the advent of the British administration, the official position was initially to ban private excavation (Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899: vi), though this ban appears to have been lifted around May 1879 (Stanley-Price 2001: 269). Small-scale exploration was undertaken by the German archaeologist Max Ohnefalsch-Richter, on behalf of museums and private individuals (Stanley-Price 2001, 2018). The first British-led larger scale excavations under the new regime, in 1882, were proposed by Lieutenant Herbert Kitchener (1850–1916), Director of Survey, and supervised by the colonial administrator George Gordon Hake (1847–1903). Funded by the South Kensington Museum rather than the British Museum, they focused on obtaining aesthetically pleasing objects rather than archaeological recording (Bailey 1965; Kiely 2011). The Cyprus Museum, the first national institution for discovering, storing, displaying and studying the island’s antiquities, was founded in 1882, and under the Ottoman Law of Antiquities of 1874 had first claim on one-third of finds excavated through private initiatives, and ownership of all the products of any excavations it sponsored (StanleyPrice 2001: 270). However, it was stymied by lack of funds, affecting its ability to undertake excavations, provide proper facilities for storage and display, and ensure that its dues from private excavations were collected (Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899: vi). The early years of the British administration were characterised by an unfocused and casual approach to excavating antiquities. For the new administration, grappling with a range of complex issues and hampered by limited funding, proper governance of antiquities was not a high priority. Meanwhile, military and civilian officials posted to Cyprus purchased antiquities from local excavators and collectors and explored its archaeology, considered to be one of the leisure activities afforded by the island, in a spirit of idle enquiry. Spending a limited amount of time on the island – sometimes just a few months – these temporary residents lacked the opportunities of earlier consular collectors and local antiquarians to build up expertise and an appreciation of the island’s history. University of Leeds, GB anna.h.reeve@gmail.com Reeve, ","PeriodicalId":41664,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the History of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48872095","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":"The Internationalization and Institutionalization of Archaeology, or, How a Rich Man’s Pastime Became an International Scientific Discipline, and What Happened Thereafter","authors":"D. Fleming","doi":"10.5334/bha-628","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/bha-628","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41664,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the History of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5334/bha-628","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44188244","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}
Our archaeological understanding of Western Desert cultural landscapes continues to change and become more nuanced. Through a multi-decadal relationship forged between Aboriginal people and collaborating anthropologists and archaeologists (specifically Bob Tonkinson, Peter Veth and more recently – since 2000 – Jo McDonald), this place’s deep significance to the Martu Traditional Owners is confirmed. Our investigations of Serpents Glen (Karnatukul) are also contributing to a deeper understanding of the archaeology of Australia, particularly in relation to the flexibility of arid-zone hunter-gatherers. The re-analysis of key sites around Australia continues to reveal greater antiquity of Aboriginal culture while increasingly viable data sets also provide new evidence for the models we deploy to understand human behaviour. Australian sites excavated by pioneering archaeologists (Bowdler 1976; Bowler et al. 1970; Gould 1977; Mulvaney 1960; Wright 1971) began to unravel the myth of a shallow timeframe. The rise of professionalism and regionalism at the end of last millennium saw the focus shift from hunting deep-time excavations, to gathering understandings of social geography and cultural complexity: seen by some as gendered practice (Moser 2007). The last decade has seen a number of the landmark sites being revisited (e.g. Riwi, Carpenter’s Gap, Puntutjarpa, Malakunanja II/Madjedbebe) and explored in new detail with a range of improved scientific techniques. This has resulted in increasingly earlier evidence for arrivals on the Australian continent (Norman et al. 2017; Veth 2017). This recent efflorescence also provides greater clarity on the complexity and adaptability of the first Australians (Balme 2000/Wood et al. 2016; Whitau et al. 2016; O’Connor 1995/Maloney et al. 2018; Gould 1977/Smith et al. 2017; Roberts et al. 1990/Clarkson et al. 2017). The most recent archaeological excavations at Karnatukul were at the request of Native Title holders who wanted additional knowledge about the landscape before the installation of the first tourist facilities. This investigation has almost doubled the known occupation of this site, making it the earliest known in the Australian arid zone, providing further contradiction to Gould’s model for a late Pleistocene-Early Holocene entry into the interior deserts. The stylistic discontinuities at both the regional and site level also refute his Australian Desert Culture being one of long-term cultural conservatism. Revisiting Serpents Glen has resulted in a revision to its deep time significance, but it has also demonstrated the complexity of Holocene arid-zone lifeways. Reanalysis has mobilised stone tool and rock art productions; and by exploring the contemporaneity of these two behaviours we have achieved a level of understanding which Gould University of Western Australia, AU jo.mcdonald@uwa.edu.au McDonald, J. 2020. Serpents Glen (Karnatukul): New Histories for Deep time Attachment to Country in Australia’s
{"title":"Serpents Glen (Karnatukul): New Histories for Deep time Attachment to Country in Australia’s Western Desert","authors":"J. McDonald","doi":"10.5334/bha-624","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/bha-624","url":null,"abstract":"Our archaeological understanding of Western Desert cultural landscapes continues to change and become more nuanced. Through a multi-decadal relationship forged between Aboriginal people and collaborating anthropologists and archaeologists (specifically Bob Tonkinson, Peter Veth and more recently – since 2000 – Jo McDonald), this place’s deep significance to the Martu Traditional Owners is confirmed. Our investigations of Serpents Glen (Karnatukul) are also contributing to a deeper understanding of the archaeology of Australia, particularly in relation to the flexibility of arid-zone hunter-gatherers. The re-analysis of key sites around Australia continues to reveal greater antiquity of Aboriginal culture while increasingly viable data sets also provide new evidence for the models we deploy to understand human behaviour. Australian sites excavated by pioneering archaeologists (Bowdler 1976; Bowler et al. 1970; Gould 1977; Mulvaney 1960; Wright 1971) began to unravel the myth of a shallow timeframe. The rise of professionalism and regionalism at the end of last millennium saw the focus shift from hunting deep-time excavations, to gathering understandings of social geography and cultural complexity: seen by some as gendered practice (Moser 2007). The last decade has seen a number of the landmark sites being revisited (e.g. Riwi, Carpenter’s Gap, Puntutjarpa, Malakunanja II/Madjedbebe) and explored in new detail with a range of improved scientific techniques. This has resulted in increasingly earlier evidence for arrivals on the Australian continent (Norman et al. 2017; Veth 2017). This recent efflorescence also provides greater clarity on the complexity and adaptability of the first Australians (Balme 2000/Wood et al. 2016; Whitau et al. 2016; O’Connor 1995/Maloney et al. 2018; Gould 1977/Smith et al. 2017; Roberts et al. 1990/Clarkson et al. 2017). The most recent archaeological excavations at Karnatukul were at the request of Native Title holders who wanted additional knowledge about the landscape before the installation of the first tourist facilities. This investigation has almost doubled the known occupation of this site, making it the earliest known in the Australian arid zone, providing further contradiction to Gould’s model for a late Pleistocene-Early Holocene entry into the interior deserts. The stylistic discontinuities at both the regional and site level also refute his Australian Desert Culture being one of long-term cultural conservatism. Revisiting Serpents Glen has resulted in a revision to its deep time significance, but it has also demonstrated the complexity of Holocene arid-zone lifeways. Reanalysis has mobilised stone tool and rock art productions; and by exploring the contemporaneity of these two behaviours we have achieved a level of understanding which Gould University of Western Australia, AU jo.mcdonald@uwa.edu.au McDonald, J. 2020. Serpents Glen (Karnatukul): New Histories for Deep time Attachment to Country in Australia’s","PeriodicalId":41664,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the History of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46791579","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}
From the 1880s onwards, the [Royal] Anthropological Institute (hereafter, the Institute or RAI) played a key role in arguments surrounding eoliths, both as a venue for significant events and through the pages of its journals. Eoliths, regarded by ‘eolithophiles’ as the precursors of handaxes, had become an issue almost as soon as the first chipped flints had been accepted as artifacts in the mid-nineteenth century. The ensuing debate, which drew in many luminaries of the age–such as Edward Tylor, Alfred Russel Wallace and Joseph Prestwich–exemplified the changing relationship between amateurs and professionals in the affairs of the Institute, and between different branches of evolutionist anthropology, addressing questions of scientific method and ethnographic analogy, and contributing to the splits between the branches, and the eventual supremacy of the professionals by the eve of the Second World War. The objective of this paper is to shed light on this relationship, based on a critical review of the large bibliography on the subject and on the Harrison archive deposited in the Maidstone Museum. We have also examined publications relating to the controversy in RAI publications and in its manuscripts and archive collection. This has allowed us to marry the accounts found in the two archives, which reflect different perspectives: that of the serious amateur and eolithophile Benjamin Harrison, and the official–more neutral and cautious–records of the Institute.1
{"title":"The Great Eolith Debate and the Anthropological Institute","authors":"Angela Muthana, R. Ellen","doi":"10.5334/bha-623","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/bha-623","url":null,"abstract":"From the 1880s onwards, the [Royal] Anthropological Institute (hereafter, the Institute or RAI) played a key role in arguments surrounding eoliths, both as a venue for significant events and through the pages of its journals. Eoliths, regarded by ‘eolithophiles’ as the precursors of handaxes, had become an issue almost as soon as the first chipped flints had been accepted as artifacts in the mid-nineteenth century. The ensuing debate, which drew in many luminaries of the age–such as Edward Tylor, Alfred Russel Wallace and Joseph Prestwich–exemplified the changing relationship between amateurs and professionals in the affairs of the Institute, and between different branches of evolutionist anthropology, addressing questions of scientific method and ethnographic analogy, and contributing to the splits between the branches, and the eventual supremacy of the professionals by the eve of the Second World War. The objective of this paper is to shed light on this relationship, based on a critical review of the large bibliography on the subject and on the Harrison archive deposited in the Maidstone Museum. We have also examined publications relating to the controversy in RAI publications and in its manuscripts and archive collection. This has allowed us to marry the accounts found in the two archives, which reflect different perspectives: that of the serious amateur and eolithophile Benjamin Harrison, and the official–more neutral and cautious–records of the Institute.1","PeriodicalId":41664,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the History of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44722879","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}
This paper challenges the oft-repeated conventional story of the beginning of ‘modern’ Australian archaeology, seen as the era of the professional archaeologist that succeeded an undisciplined phase of indiscriminate collecting of skulls and stone artefacts by ‘amateurs’ who, on the whole, believed that Indigenous Australians had arrived on the continent so recently that any excavation of archaeological sites would be pointless. Cambridge-trained John Mulvaney’s excavations at Fromm’s Landing on the Murray River in South Australia commencing in January 1956 have been seen most recently as marking the decisive break, one between ‘good’, professional and ethical archaeology and the earlier ‘bad’ amateur period of mere antiquarianism, ignoring the concerns of and trampling upon the rights of Indigenous Australians in the spirit of triumphant colonialism. This contrast is inaccurate, overdrawn, and ignores the positive contribution of many earlier conscientious scholars; labelling all of them as ‘amateurs’ confuses rather than enlightens the history of Australian archaeology.
这篇论文挑战了经常被重复的传统故事，即“现代”澳大利亚考古学的开始，被视为专业考古学家的时代，他们继承了“业余爱好者”不加选择地收集头骨和石头文物的无序阶段，总的来说，业余爱好者认为澳大利亚土著居民是最近才到达大陆的，任何考古遗址的挖掘都是毫无意义的。剑桥大学毕业的John Mulvaney于1956年1月开始在南澳大利亚墨累河上的Fromm ' s Landing进行挖掘，这被认为是标志着决定性的突破，标志着“好的”、专业的、有道德的考古学和早期“坏的”业余时期纯粹的古物研究之间的突破，这些时期忽视了对澳大利亚土著居民的关注，并以胜利的殖民主义精神践踏了他们的权利。这种对比是不准确的，过度的，并且忽略了许多早期认真的学者的积极贡献;给他们贴上“业余爱好者”的标签，非但没有启发澳大利亚考古学的历史，反而会混淆视听。
{"title":"Everything You’ve Been Told About the History of Australian Archaeology is Wrong!","authors":"M. Spriggs","doi":"10.5334/bha-626","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/bha-626","url":null,"abstract":"This paper challenges the oft-repeated conventional story of the beginning of ‘modern’ Australian archaeology, seen as the era of the professional archaeologist that succeeded an undisciplined phase of indiscriminate collecting of skulls and stone artefacts by ‘amateurs’ who, on the whole, believed that Indigenous Australians had arrived on the continent so recently that any excavation of archaeological sites would be pointless. Cambridge-trained John Mulvaney’s excavations at Fromm’s Landing on the Murray River in South Australia commencing in January 1956 have been seen most recently as marking the decisive break, one between ‘good’, professional and ethical archaeology and the earlier ‘bad’ amateur period of mere antiquarianism, ignoring the concerns of and trampling upon the rights of Indigenous Australians in the spirit of triumphant colonialism. This contrast is inaccurate, overdrawn, and ignores the positive contribution of many earlier conscientious scholars; labelling all of them as ‘amateurs’ confuses rather than enlightens the history of Australian archaeology.","PeriodicalId":41664,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the History of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5334/bha-626","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71065271","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}
Amedeo Maiuri (1886–1963) is rightly considered one of the greatest Italian archaeologists of the twentieth century and his scientific archaeological work at Herculaneum has been much studied. Yet while Maiuri’s work flourished under the patronage of Mussolini’s fascist regime, the nature of his relationship with the party has received less attention. This paper, based both on archival sources and Maiuri’s published writings, investigates Maiuri’s politically committed response through archaeology, both to the ideological and the propaganda needs of the fascist regime. It is argued here that Maiuri’s writings as well as his museological practice in the reconstruction of Herculaneum as a ‘resurrected’ and ‘living’ Roman town, represent an attempt to further develop the affective aspect of the fascist doctrine of romanita. Maiuri, drawn to the ‘action not words’ of fascism, provided the regime’s propaganda with an inspiring example of what willpower, hard work and modern machines could achieve in the archaeology of the ‘New Italy.’
{"title":"Amedeo Maiuri: Herculaneum, Archaeology and Fascist Propaganda","authors":"B. Brennan","doi":"10.5334/bha-625","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/bha-625","url":null,"abstract":"Amedeo Maiuri (1886–1963) is rightly considered one of the greatest Italian archaeologists of the twentieth century and his scientific archaeological work at Herculaneum has been much studied. Yet while Maiuri’s work flourished under the patronage of Mussolini’s fascist regime, the nature of his relationship with the party has received less attention. This paper, based both on archival sources and Maiuri’s published writings, investigates Maiuri’s politically committed response through archaeology, both to the ideological and the propaganda needs of the fascist regime. It is argued here that Maiuri’s writings as well as his museological practice in the reconstruction of Herculaneum as a ‘resurrected’ and ‘living’ Roman town, represent an attempt to further develop the affective aspect of the fascist doctrine of romanita. Maiuri, drawn to the ‘action not words’ of fascism, provided the regime’s propaganda with an inspiring example of what willpower, hard work and modern machines could achieve in the archaeology of the ‘New Italy.’","PeriodicalId":41664,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the History of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5334/bha-625","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47181730","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 paper I seek to understand antiquarian practices in a colonial context in the Indian sub-continent with reference to J.H. Rivett-Carnac who was a member of the Bengal Civil Service. Covering varied subjects like ‘ancient cup marks on rocks,’ spindle whorls, votive seals or a solitary Buddha figure, Rivett-Carnac’s writings reflect an imagining of a native landscape with wide-ranging connections in myths, symbolisms and material cultures which cross-cut geographical borders. I show how an epistemology of comparative archaeology was formed through the ways in which he compared evidence recorded from different parts of India to those documented in Great Britain and northern Europe. This was held together by ideas of tribal/racial migrations. I am arguing that a distinctive form of antiquarianism was unfolding in an ambiguous, interstitial space which deconstructs any neat binaries between the colonizer and the colonized. Recent researches have argued for many antiquarianisms which this paper upholds. With his obsession of cup marks Rivett-Carnac built a new set of interconnections in late 19th century Britain where the Antiquity of man was the pivot around which debates and theories circulated. In the colony, we see some of his predecessors concerned with the megalithic tombs scattered in different parts of central and southern India. Rivett-Carnac’s methodology was less rigorous and ‘scientific’ as compared to his peers or predecessors. His obsession with cup marks followed him—as he states in his autobiography—throughout his life.
{"title":"Locating an Antiquarian Initiative in a Late 19th Century Colonial Landscape: Rivett-Carnac and the Cultural Imagining of the Indian Sub-Continent","authors":"Bishnupriya Basak","doi":"10.5334/BHA-610","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/BHA-610","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I seek to understand antiquarian practices in a colonial context in the Indian sub-continent with reference to J.H. Rivett-Carnac who was a member of the Bengal Civil Service. Covering varied subjects like ‘ancient cup marks on rocks,’ spindle whorls, votive seals or a solitary Buddha figure, Rivett-Carnac’s writings reflect an imagining of a native landscape with wide-ranging connections in myths, symbolisms and material cultures which cross-cut geographical borders. I show how an epistemology of comparative archaeology was formed through the ways in which he compared evidence recorded from different parts of India to those documented in Great Britain and northern Europe. This was held together by ideas of tribal/racial migrations. I am arguing that a distinctive form of antiquarianism was unfolding in an ambiguous, interstitial space which deconstructs any neat binaries between the colonizer and the colonized. Recent researches have argued for many antiquarianisms which this paper upholds. With his obsession of cup marks Rivett-Carnac built a new set of interconnections in late 19th century Britain where the Antiquity of man was the pivot around which debates and theories circulated. In the colony, we see some of his predecessors concerned with the megalithic tombs scattered in different parts of central and southern India. Rivett-Carnac’s methodology was less rigorous and ‘scientific’ as compared to his peers or predecessors. His obsession with cup marks followed him—as he states in his autobiography—throughout his life.","PeriodicalId":41664,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the History of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5334/BHA-610","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44876890","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：