Pub Date : 2023-03-23DOI: 10.1017/S1380203823000041
S. Radchenko, Dmytro Kiosak
Abstract This reaction to the Paul Newson and Ruth Young paper entitled ‘Post-conflict ethics, archaeology and archaeological heritage. A call for discussion’ (Archaeological dialogues, 2022) supports the call for a discussion regarding archaeological ethics in post-conflict zones. Following the agreement on the fuzzy border between the state of ‘conflict’ and ‘post-conflict’, it reflects on the continuity between these two. Furthermore, the reaction adds an additional issue to the discussion, which is the ethical ground of ‘being above the conflict’. Applying a ‘holistic ethic’ approach, it reflects on the ethical assessment of archaeological practices performed by Russian archaeologists in the zones that were damaged during conflict, escalated due to the actions of the Russian government. A series of examples are shown to consider the complexity of ethical judgements in this particular case. Last but not least, the reaction claims that in some cases ethical judgements are possible and effective due to the convergence of numerous factors.
{"title":"Always take a look back. Ethics in post-conflict archaeology","authors":"S. Radchenko, Dmytro Kiosak","doi":"10.1017/S1380203823000041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203823000041","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This reaction to the Paul Newson and Ruth Young paper entitled ‘Post-conflict ethics, archaeology and archaeological heritage. A call for discussion’ (Archaeological dialogues, 2022) supports the call for a discussion regarding archaeological ethics in post-conflict zones. Following the agreement on the fuzzy border between the state of ‘conflict’ and ‘post-conflict’, it reflects on the continuity between these two. Furthermore, the reaction adds an additional issue to the discussion, which is the ethical ground of ‘being above the conflict’. Applying a ‘holistic ethic’ approach, it reflects on the ethical assessment of archaeological practices performed by Russian archaeologists in the zones that were damaged during conflict, escalated due to the actions of the Russian government. A series of examples are shown to consider the complexity of ethical judgements in this particular case. Last but not least, the reaction claims that in some cases ethical judgements are possible and effective due to the convergence of numerous factors.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45712778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-22DOI: 10.1017/S1380203823000016
Artur Ribeiro
Abstract On the occasion of a short research trip to Japan, I had the opportunity to sit down with Professor Koji Mizoguchi in Kyushu University, Fukuoka, to discuss several topics, which you will find transcribed below. I was curious as to his thoughts that he – as the President of the World Archaeological Congress, a non-governmental and non-profit organization that promotes the exchange of archaeological results, training at a global scale and the empowerment of Indigenous and minority groups, a Professor of Social Archaeology, and one of the few archaeologists writing archaeological theory in the far East – had on the state of the art of archaeology today. Furthermore, since I grew up in Europe but nevertheless feel a deep connection with my own Asian ancestry, I was very interested in Mizoguchi’s own experience and contributions to archaeology in Japan and the world.
{"title":"A conversation with Koji Mizoguchi. On globalization, Japanese archaeology and archaeological theory today","authors":"Artur Ribeiro","doi":"10.1017/S1380203823000016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203823000016","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract On the occasion of a short research trip to Japan, I had the opportunity to sit down with Professor Koji Mizoguchi in Kyushu University, Fukuoka, to discuss several topics, which you will find transcribed below. I was curious as to his thoughts that he – as the President of the World Archaeological Congress, a non-governmental and non-profit organization that promotes the exchange of archaeological results, training at a global scale and the empowerment of Indigenous and minority groups, a Professor of Social Archaeology, and one of the few archaeologists writing archaeological theory in the far East – had on the state of the art of archaeology today. Furthermore, since I grew up in Europe but nevertheless feel a deep connection with my own Asian ancestry, I was very interested in Mizoguchi’s own experience and contributions to archaeology in Japan and the world.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44640395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-22DOI: 10.1017/S1380203823000028
Þóra Pétursdóttir, T. Sørensen
Abstract What legitimizes archaeological work in an age of global climate change, socio-political crises and economic recession? On what topics should archaeology focus its research questions, and what forms of archaeological engagement are not merely justifiable but able to make a difference in light of such challenges? Today, there is a tendency, we argue, that archaeological responses to current challenges are expected to align with a specific mode of conduct, political stance and genre, where, for example, a very particular notion of activism, responsibility and ethics is dominating. There is no denial that current challenges call for immediate instrumental reactions, but we contend that valuable reactions can – or even must – vary, and that more fundamental and slow ontological and epistemological change should also be nested within these responses. In this article, we explore what it means to care – what it means to be concerned – in the Anthropocene through archaeological practice and aesthetic engagement. By highlighting the relations between ethics and aesthetics, we explore ways in which we get in touch with the objects of concern, placing undecidability and speculation as dispositions equally important to urgency and impact.
{"title":"Archaeological encounters: Ethics and aesthetics under the mark of the Anthropocene","authors":"Þóra Pétursdóttir, T. Sørensen","doi":"10.1017/S1380203823000028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203823000028","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract What legitimizes archaeological work in an age of global climate change, socio-political crises and economic recession? On what topics should archaeology focus its research questions, and what forms of archaeological engagement are not merely justifiable but able to make a difference in light of such challenges? Today, there is a tendency, we argue, that archaeological responses to current challenges are expected to align with a specific mode of conduct, political stance and genre, where, for example, a very particular notion of activism, responsibility and ethics is dominating. There is no denial that current challenges call for immediate instrumental reactions, but we contend that valuable reactions can – or even must – vary, and that more fundamental and slow ontological and epistemological change should also be nested within these responses. In this article, we explore what it means to care – what it means to be concerned – in the Anthropocene through archaeological practice and aesthetic engagement. By highlighting the relations between ethics and aesthetics, we explore ways in which we get in touch with the objects of concern, placing undecidability and speculation as dispositions equally important to urgency and impact.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48648324","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-13DOI: 10.1017/S138020382300003X
Justin Guibert, Antonio Pérez-Balarezo, H. Forestier
Abstract How can we understand prehistoric lithic objects? What meaning should we give them and what view should we adopt to claim access to their significance? How can we reduce and clarify our biases? This article is a proposal to introduce Peircian semiotics to review lithic objects. For a long time, these were apprehended as types, sometimes within evolutionary lineages; however, in this research, knapped stone objects will be perceived through a semio-pragmatic grid and reviewed as signs. The proposed approach is a new way of accessing the fields of technical phenomena of prehistoric communities. This new perception aims at a quest for objectivity, by clarifying the affective, analytical and interpretative a priori as an answer to the sometimes very personal view of the prehistorian on lithic objects. Charles Sanders Peirce’s logical theory of signs or semiotics is contextualized within an ‘artisanal’ reading of prehistoric tools as initiated by Éric Boëda and further developed by Michel Lepot. Through this phaneroscopic/phenomenological vision, the technical object, now a sign-object, is placed in action (semiosis) within a system of signs. This new trajectory is positioned both as a methodological tool and as an innovative milestone in the construction of a more logical episteme in Prehistory, taking lithics both as signs of past human activity and of archaeological representations.
{"title":"Signs of prehistory. A Peircian semiotic approach to lithics","authors":"Justin Guibert, Antonio Pérez-Balarezo, H. Forestier","doi":"10.1017/S138020382300003X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S138020382300003X","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract How can we understand prehistoric lithic objects? What meaning should we give them and what view should we adopt to claim access to their significance? How can we reduce and clarify our biases? This article is a proposal to introduce Peircian semiotics to review lithic objects. For a long time, these were apprehended as types, sometimes within evolutionary lineages; however, in this research, knapped stone objects will be perceived through a semio-pragmatic grid and reviewed as signs. The proposed approach is a new way of accessing the fields of technical phenomena of prehistoric communities. This new perception aims at a quest for objectivity, by clarifying the affective, analytical and interpretative a priori as an answer to the sometimes very personal view of the prehistorian on lithic objects. Charles Sanders Peirce’s logical theory of signs or semiotics is contextualized within an ‘artisanal’ reading of prehistoric tools as initiated by Éric Boëda and further developed by Michel Lepot. Through this phaneroscopic/phenomenological vision, the technical object, now a sign-object, is placed in action (semiosis) within a system of signs. This new trajectory is positioned both as a methodological tool and as an innovative milestone in the construction of a more logical episteme in Prehistory, taking lithics both as signs of past human activity and of archaeological representations.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44526076","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203822000289
J. Barrett
Abstract If archaeology is the examination of historical conditions with reference to a surviving material residue, then one way in which these conditions might be characterized is as the different ways they had enabled the development of different forms of humanness. The historical construction of this diversity is discussed here as the ways that the relationships between humans and things had been performed. This means that the practice of archaeology must question the recent desire to adopt a flat ontology that defines archaeology as the ‘discipline of things’. It is argued that it was by means of the performances established between humans and their various objects of concern that different forms of human life were able to define themselves. The implications of this argument for the practice of archaeology are explored.
{"title":"Humanness as performance","authors":"J. Barrett","doi":"10.1017/S1380203822000289","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203822000289","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract If archaeology is the examination of historical conditions with reference to a surviving material residue, then one way in which these conditions might be characterized is as the different ways they had enabled the development of different forms of humanness. The historical construction of this diversity is discussed here as the ways that the relationships between humans and things had been performed. This means that the practice of archaeology must question the recent desire to adopt a flat ontology that defines archaeology as the ‘discipline of things’. It is argued that it was by means of the performances established between humans and their various objects of concern that different forms of human life were able to define themselves. The implications of this argument for the practice of archaeology are explored.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48894769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203822000319
Lesley McFadyen
whether itwouldbepossible toexplore thehumanityandhumannessof thepast bymeansofobserving performance on the material constraints. It is certainly true that such a detailed and delicate observation/examination on performance with relation to material constraints would contribute to a better understanding of humanity andhumanness.However, I feel that other factors – such as habitus incarnated intobodyorstructuralproperties inmemoryorevenstockofknowledge–whichare inheritedby memory and its negotiationbetween generation andwhich also become grounds for (historical) intersubjectivity and we-relation (Schutz and Luckmann 1973, 1983), are important. It is questionable whether the observation on performance withinmaterial constraints could be harmonized, conflicted and compromised with habitus, structural properties and stock of knowledge, and whether we can interpret the relations between those factors in archaeological practice. Barrett also suggests a ‘bottom up’ approach rather than a ‘top down’ one, saying that history has always been made by diverse practices that are lived both temporally and spatially and also that history is a process that was created from the bottom up and from the accumulation of local performance. His approach, to me, seems so enlightened and feasible since most of archaeological interpretation on the past society so far tends to emphasize the centre, core, elite, ritual, etc., rather than the periphery, boundary, the commoner, daily life, etc. Moreover, as Barrett points out, it cannot be denied that numerous past societies have been categorized by simple and few criteria (as mentioned above) into several types of societies. I believe that it is so important to look closely into how power could be activated and exercised in actual situations in which the material would condition and/or enable human performance and, at the same time, humans would perform or leave the trace of possibilities of performance within those material constraints in various ways. However, I think his interest in humanness and performance does not necessarily mean that he would ignore ‘traditional issues’ in social archaeology. It is still important to understand the process of growing centrality, concentration of population, long distance exchange or trading systems to trigger the evolution of a past society and to maintain this. I feel that Barrett’s ‘bottom up’ approach could/should be pondered in archaeological practice and interpretation. However, this does not necessarily mean that history is only composed of this ‘micro-history’ or ‘bottom up’ approach. Therefore, it would be ideal if we could find more ways and routes to interlink these two different approaches harmoniously or even sometimes contradictorily.
{"title":"Archaeologists, it is time to listen!","authors":"Lesley McFadyen","doi":"10.1017/S1380203822000319","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203822000319","url":null,"abstract":"whether itwouldbepossible toexplore thehumanityandhumannessof thepast bymeansofobserving performance on the material constraints. It is certainly true that such a detailed and delicate observation/examination on performance with relation to material constraints would contribute to a better understanding of humanity andhumanness.However, I feel that other factors – such as habitus incarnated intobodyorstructuralproperties inmemoryorevenstockofknowledge–whichare inheritedby memory and its negotiationbetween generation andwhich also become grounds for (historical) intersubjectivity and we-relation (Schutz and Luckmann 1973, 1983), are important. It is questionable whether the observation on performance withinmaterial constraints could be harmonized, conflicted and compromised with habitus, structural properties and stock of knowledge, and whether we can interpret the relations between those factors in archaeological practice. Barrett also suggests a ‘bottom up’ approach rather than a ‘top down’ one, saying that history has always been made by diverse practices that are lived both temporally and spatially and also that history is a process that was created from the bottom up and from the accumulation of local performance. His approach, to me, seems so enlightened and feasible since most of archaeological interpretation on the past society so far tends to emphasize the centre, core, elite, ritual, etc., rather than the periphery, boundary, the commoner, daily life, etc. Moreover, as Barrett points out, it cannot be denied that numerous past societies have been categorized by simple and few criteria (as mentioned above) into several types of societies. I believe that it is so important to look closely into how power could be activated and exercised in actual situations in which the material would condition and/or enable human performance and, at the same time, humans would perform or leave the trace of possibilities of performance within those material constraints in various ways. However, I think his interest in humanness and performance does not necessarily mean that he would ignore ‘traditional issues’ in social archaeology. It is still important to understand the process of growing centrality, concentration of population, long distance exchange or trading systems to trigger the evolution of a past society and to maintain this. I feel that Barrett’s ‘bottom up’ approach could/should be pondered in archaeological practice and interpretation. However, this does not necessarily mean that history is only composed of this ‘micro-history’ or ‘bottom up’ approach. Therefore, it would be ideal if we could find more ways and routes to interlink these two different approaches harmoniously or even sometimes contradictorily.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45254369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-09DOI: 10.1017/S1380203822000307
Jongil Kim
different and concomitant senses, innovatively utilizing archaeological data to piece together sensuous pasts. The archaeology of the senses highlighted that sensory engagement is synaesthetic and argued that Western narratives arbitrarily created five distinct sensory categories (Hamilakis 2011, 210). This critical engagement with the senses developed the discourse and reconfigured the potentiality of sensuous engagement in the past for contemporary audiences. Reading Barrett’s paper, it is obvious that the role of the visual is vital in his theoretical discussion, as seen in his proposal that new visual technologies might offer opportunities for excavators to better understand historical locations (Barrett 2022, 12); his argument that action can be read like a sign (2022, 6) andhis emphasis that performances are observed (2022, 9); the visual permeates his discussion. Barrett’s discussion could be accused of ocularcentrism; developing the performative aspect of his argument will likely remedy this issue. Barrett focusses on performance, drawing a distinction between the performer and the observed (2022, 8); a Baradian phenomena entangles these positions. A more profitable line of enquiry might be the analysis of ‘doing’ or making together, whether we consider the affective relationships formed during ‘communitas’ (emotive collective togetherness; see Turner 2012) or the embodied knowledge and communication that occurs in communities of practice (Wenger 1998; Wendrich 2013; discussed in Govier 2017); rather than reiterating a cartesian division (cf. Barrett, 2022, 9), the interwoven character should be addressed. For the record, I am for the archaeological record– in the sense that I think archaeologicalmaterials hold knowledge and information about past events (cf. Barrett, 2022, 11). If we take Barad’s theory on board, it is clear that there is a great amountof information in archaeologicalmaterializations owing to the interwoven character of matter and discourse. As such, the archaeological record is not simply a ledger or register or script documenting a sequence of events but an opportunity to gain ontological insight into factors suchasdiscursivity, power, causality, agency andmateriality.Regardlessof training and expertise (cf. Barrett, 2022, 9), nooneperson or excavation teamshould be placed in the privileged positionof sole responsibility for interpretation; informationmustbecollected andshared in amanner that makes further research possible. Finally, I see no need to offer a blanket statement about what humanity is or isn’t, was or wasn’t, especially one that starts with the notion that humanity ‘respected the significance of people, plants, animals, and things’ (Barrett 2022, 1) – evidence of human activities unequivocally suggests otherwise.
{"title":"Comments on ‘Humanness as performance’ by John C. Barrett","authors":"Jongil Kim","doi":"10.1017/S1380203822000307","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203822000307","url":null,"abstract":"different and concomitant senses, innovatively utilizing archaeological data to piece together sensuous pasts. The archaeology of the senses highlighted that sensory engagement is synaesthetic and argued that Western narratives arbitrarily created five distinct sensory categories (Hamilakis 2011, 210). This critical engagement with the senses developed the discourse and reconfigured the potentiality of sensuous engagement in the past for contemporary audiences. Reading Barrett’s paper, it is obvious that the role of the visual is vital in his theoretical discussion, as seen in his proposal that new visual technologies might offer opportunities for excavators to better understand historical locations (Barrett 2022, 12); his argument that action can be read like a sign (2022, 6) andhis emphasis that performances are observed (2022, 9); the visual permeates his discussion. Barrett’s discussion could be accused of ocularcentrism; developing the performative aspect of his argument will likely remedy this issue. Barrett focusses on performance, drawing a distinction between the performer and the observed (2022, 8); a Baradian phenomena entangles these positions. A more profitable line of enquiry might be the analysis of ‘doing’ or making together, whether we consider the affective relationships formed during ‘communitas’ (emotive collective togetherness; see Turner 2012) or the embodied knowledge and communication that occurs in communities of practice (Wenger 1998; Wendrich 2013; discussed in Govier 2017); rather than reiterating a cartesian division (cf. Barrett, 2022, 9), the interwoven character should be addressed. For the record, I am for the archaeological record– in the sense that I think archaeologicalmaterials hold knowledge and information about past events (cf. Barrett, 2022, 11). If we take Barad’s theory on board, it is clear that there is a great amountof information in archaeologicalmaterializations owing to the interwoven character of matter and discourse. As such, the archaeological record is not simply a ledger or register or script documenting a sequence of events but an opportunity to gain ontological insight into factors suchasdiscursivity, power, causality, agency andmateriality.Regardlessof training and expertise (cf. Barrett, 2022, 9), nooneperson or excavation teamshould be placed in the privileged positionof sole responsibility for interpretation; informationmustbecollected andshared in amanner that makes further research possible. Finally, I see no need to offer a blanket statement about what humanity is or isn’t, was or wasn’t, especially one that starts with the notion that humanity ‘respected the significance of people, plants, animals, and things’ (Barrett 2022, 1) – evidence of human activities unequivocally suggests otherwise.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46219648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-09DOI: 10.1017/s1380203822000332
Claire Smith, K. Pollard
Despite the call for attention to detail and human engagement with things, the perspective remains at arm’s length.What,more concretely, would the performance of the embodied self,moving across that landscape, look like?Whatpreciselywouldbeanobject of concern for thepeasantgazing at the shifting seasons and the enclosedhillwith its shrines and storageunits: Theplough in their hand?Their leaking shoe? The thundering clouds in the sky? The growing spelt wheat?
{"title":"The implications of Indigenous conceptual frameworks and methods for rethinking humanness as performance","authors":"Claire Smith, K. Pollard","doi":"10.1017/s1380203822000332","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1380203822000332","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the call for attention to detail and human engagement with things, the perspective remains at arm’s length.What,more concretely, would the performance of the embodied self,moving across that landscape, look like?Whatpreciselywouldbeanobject of concern for thepeasantgazing at the shifting seasons and the enclosedhillwith its shrines and storageunits: Theplough in their hand?Their leaking shoe? The thundering clouds in the sky? The growing spelt wheat?","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48278441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","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：