Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1017/s1380203820000227
M. Bell, D. Gronenborn
Martin Bell is Professor of Archaeological Science and current Head of the Archaeology Department at the University of Reading, UK. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and the Society of Antiquaries of London. He teaches geoarchaeology and coastal and maritime archaeology and has particular interests in experimental archaeology and the relationship between archaeology and nature conservation and sustainability. Over the last 20 years he has excavated many intertidal prehistoric sites in the Severn Estuary in south Wales. He is author of Late Quaternary environmental change (2005, with M.J.C. Walker), Prehistoric coastal communities. The Mesolithic in western Britain (2007), Prehistoric intertidal archaeology (2000, with A. Caseldine and H. Neumann), The Experimental Earthwork Project (1996, with P. Fowler and S. Hillson), Past and present soil erosion (1992, with J. Boardman) and four earlier archaeological monographs.
{"title":"List of contributors","authors":"M. Bell, D. Gronenborn","doi":"10.1017/s1380203820000227","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1380203820000227","url":null,"abstract":"Martin Bell is Professor of Archaeological Science and current Head of the Archaeology Department at the University of Reading, UK. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and the Society of Antiquaries of London. He teaches geoarchaeology and coastal and maritime archaeology and has particular interests in experimental archaeology and the relationship between archaeology and nature conservation and sustainability. Over the last 20 years he has excavated many intertidal prehistoric sites in the Severn Estuary in south Wales. He is author of Late Quaternary environmental change (2005, with M.J.C. Walker), Prehistoric coastal communities. The Mesolithic in western Britain (2007), Prehistoric intertidal archaeology (2000, with A. Caseldine and H. Neumann), The Experimental Earthwork Project (1996, with P. Fowler and S. Hillson), Past and present soil erosion (1992, with J. Boardman) and four earlier archaeological monographs.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/s1380203820000227","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43036689","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 : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203820000239
Monika Stobiecka
Abstract Digital archaeologists claim that their practices have proven to be an important tool for mediating conflict, ensuring that the digital turn in archaeology entails engaging in current political issues. This can be questioned by analysing a copy of the Syrian Arch of Triumph. The original was destroyed in 2015. A year later, a copy was carved out of Egyptian marble; the replica was constructed thanks to digital documentation, which allowed archaeologists to create a 3D model. The arch was placed in various Western locations; however, it never reached Syria. Hybridity, the cultural and political significance of the arch’s replica and its ‘Grand Tour’ invite us to think about different interpretive layers of this artefact of ideological discourse (ontological, epistemological, ethical). In this paper, the replica of the Syrian arch will be analysed through the frameworks of post-colonial theory and technology studies. Both perspectives provide an insight into promising advantages and alarming drawbacks of such digital practices. This paper argues that the case of a copy of the Syrian Arch of Triumph on the one hand reflects the contemporary colonial technocracy in heritage politics (an ethical dimension), and on the other demonstrates that an ideological aspect of its digital reconstruction emerges from a speculative anticipation of what might constitute the universal value of world heritage in the future (an onto-epistemological dimension).
{"title":"Archaeological heritage in the age of digital colonialism","authors":"Monika Stobiecka","doi":"10.1017/S1380203820000239","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203820000239","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Digital archaeologists claim that their practices have proven to be an important tool for mediating conflict, ensuring that the digital turn in archaeology entails engaging in current political issues. This can be questioned by analysing a copy of the Syrian Arch of Triumph. The original was destroyed in 2015. A year later, a copy was carved out of Egyptian marble; the replica was constructed thanks to digital documentation, which allowed archaeologists to create a 3D model. The arch was placed in various Western locations; however, it never reached Syria. Hybridity, the cultural and political significance of the arch’s replica and its ‘Grand Tour’ invite us to think about different interpretive layers of this artefact of ideological discourse (ontological, epistemological, ethical). In this paper, the replica of the Syrian arch will be analysed through the frameworks of post-colonial theory and technology studies. Both perspectives provide an insight into promising advantages and alarming drawbacks of such digital practices. This paper argues that the case of a copy of the Syrian Arch of Triumph on the one hand reflects the contemporary colonial technocracy in heritage politics (an ethical dimension), and on the other demonstrates that an ideological aspect of its digital reconstruction emerges from a speculative anticipation of what might constitute the universal value of world heritage in the future (an onto-epistemological dimension).","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203820000239","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44858062","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 : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203820000264
Monika Stobiecka
mapped the desert landscape from above. Technocratic programmes like those outlined above reinforce a sense of superiority for Westerners in cultural and technical matters. Bell (2015, xiii) described such interventions as ‘vast schemes for the government of the universe’. However, as history reminds us, those claiming to bring knowledge and civilization are often ultimately the destroyers, looters and beneficiaries of other people’s pasts. Hijacking ISIS, whether in copying the Palmyrene arch or having a Russian orchestra play in the Roman amphitheater (Plets 2017; Meskell 2018), reflects the enormous desire of foreign states, international bodies, academics and entrepreneurs to triumph. Some of these efforts have ultimately backfired. In Florence, the IDA had purportedly forged a ‘true global symbol of the triumph of co-operation over conflict, optimism over despair, and human ingenuity over senseless destruction’. Stobiecka enumerates such quests, often shrouded in a military lexicon, where technology fights back: ‘3D printers can help undo the destruction of ISIS.’ The same was true with Bamiyan. The motivations are reflective of deep desires by the international community to rewrite history and tell a story of success, rather than the failures of heritage agencies like UNESCO (Isakhan and Meskell 2019). Furthermore, a kind of fatigue has developed around the Syrian humanitarian crisis: thus it is easier to fixate on monumental loss than on the ongoing plight of people. Although well intentioned, such virtual efforts reside in Stobiecka’s ‘exclusive zone set by archaeologists, art historians, conservators’ (p. 124). In the main, they reveal our ignorance of regional events and disciplinary histories. She recommends that archaeologists ‘resign from the digital armoury’ (p. 124). While sympathetic to Stobiecka’s arguments, I remain wary of the academic industry that continues to flourish around Palmyra. Yes, the archaeological adventurism and opportunism of the early 20th century have been refashioned into new forms of international technocratic expertise. But in fetishizing the arch, and indeed its copies, we also risk participating in the same discourses that are being critiqued. More sobering still is that the topics that scholars formulate (and seek to have funded) have simply been recalibrated to the insidious practice of ‘crisis chasing’ (Cabot 2019). The crisis is about salvage, albeit our own, since what is unfolding in Syria and Iraq has inevitably saved and spawned myriad institutions, foundations, digital start-ups, initiatives and research, with a new mission and moral charge. Perhaps now we should be considering whether we are creating ever more hostages to fortune.
从上面绘制沙漠景观图如上所述的技术官僚计划强化了西方人在文化和技术问题上的优越感。Bell (2015, xiii)将这种干预描述为“宇宙政府的庞大计划”。然而，历史提醒我们，那些自称带来知识和文明的人，最终往往是他人过去的破坏者、掠夺者和受益者。劫持ISIS，无论是复制帕尔米拉拱门，还是让俄罗斯管弦乐队在罗马圆形剧场演出(Plets 2017;Meskell 2018)，反映了外国政府、国际机构、学者和企业家对胜利的巨大渴望。其中一些努力最终适得其反。据称，在佛罗伦萨，国际开发协会打造了“合作战胜冲突、乐观战胜绝望、人类智慧战胜无谓破坏的真正全球象征”。斯托比耶卡列举了这样的任务，这些任务通常被笼罩在军事词汇中，技术反击:“3D打印机可以帮助解除ISIS的毁灭。巴米扬也是如此。这些动机反映了国际社会改写历史和讲述成功故事的深切愿望，而不是教科文组织等遗产机构的失败(Isakhan and Meskell, 2019)。此外，围绕叙利亚人道主义危机已经形成了一种疲惫感:因此，人们更容易关注巨大的损失，而不是持续的人民困境。尽管出发点是好的，但这种虚拟的努力存在于Stobiecka的“由考古学家、艺术史学家、文物保护者设定的专属区域”(第124页)。总的来说，它们揭示了我们对地区事件和学科历史的无知。她建议考古学家“退出数字军械库”(第124页)。虽然我赞同斯托比埃卡的观点，但我仍然对Palmyra周围蓬勃发展的学术产业保持警惕。是的，20世纪初的考古冒险主义和机会主义已经被重新塑造成国际技术专家的新形式。但是，在对拱门及其复制品的迷恋中，我们也冒着参与被批评的同样话语的风险。更发人深省的是，学者们制定(并试图资助)的主题只是被重新校准为“追逐危机”的阴险做法(Cabot 2019)。这场危机关乎拯救，尽管是我们自己的拯救，因为叙利亚和伊拉克正在发生的事情不可避免地拯救并催生了无数机构、基金会、数字初创企业、倡议和研究，它们肩负着新的使命和道德责任。也许现在我们应该考虑一下，我们是否正在制造更多的命运人质。
{"title":"‘Violent care’? A response to Lynn Meskell and Trinidad Rico","authors":"Monika Stobiecka","doi":"10.1017/S1380203820000264","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203820000264","url":null,"abstract":"mapped the desert landscape from above. Technocratic programmes like those outlined above reinforce a sense of superiority for Westerners in cultural and technical matters. Bell (2015, xiii) described such interventions as ‘vast schemes for the government of the universe’. However, as history reminds us, those claiming to bring knowledge and civilization are often ultimately the destroyers, looters and beneficiaries of other people’s pasts. Hijacking ISIS, whether in copying the Palmyrene arch or having a Russian orchestra play in the Roman amphitheater (Plets 2017; Meskell 2018), reflects the enormous desire of foreign states, international bodies, academics and entrepreneurs to triumph. Some of these efforts have ultimately backfired. In Florence, the IDA had purportedly forged a ‘true global symbol of the triumph of co-operation over conflict, optimism over despair, and human ingenuity over senseless destruction’. Stobiecka enumerates such quests, often shrouded in a military lexicon, where technology fights back: ‘3D printers can help undo the destruction of ISIS.’ The same was true with Bamiyan. The motivations are reflective of deep desires by the international community to rewrite history and tell a story of success, rather than the failures of heritage agencies like UNESCO (Isakhan and Meskell 2019). Furthermore, a kind of fatigue has developed around the Syrian humanitarian crisis: thus it is easier to fixate on monumental loss than on the ongoing plight of people. Although well intentioned, such virtual efforts reside in Stobiecka’s ‘exclusive zone set by archaeologists, art historians, conservators’ (p. 124). In the main, they reveal our ignorance of regional events and disciplinary histories. She recommends that archaeologists ‘resign from the digital armoury’ (p. 124). While sympathetic to Stobiecka’s arguments, I remain wary of the academic industry that continues to flourish around Palmyra. Yes, the archaeological adventurism and opportunism of the early 20th century have been refashioned into new forms of international technocratic expertise. But in fetishizing the arch, and indeed its copies, we also risk participating in the same discourses that are being critiqued. More sobering still is that the topics that scholars formulate (and seek to have funded) have simply been recalibrated to the insidious practice of ‘crisis chasing’ (Cabot 2019). The crisis is about salvage, albeit our own, since what is unfolding in Syria and Iraq has inevitably saved and spawned myriad institutions, foundations, digital start-ups, initiatives and research, with a new mission and moral charge. Perhaps now we should be considering whether we are creating ever more hostages to fortune.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203820000264","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43787018","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 : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203820000203
J. Flexner
Abstract It is increasingly acknowledged that 21st-century archaeology faces serious challenges from a variety of directions, ranging from the theoretical to the practical. Above all, the discipline’s entanglement with capitalism, capitalist ideologies and capitalist institutions is simply unsustainable. The concept of degrowth involves a reconceptualization of archaeology’s possible future(s) in terms of a withdrawal from capitalism and an emphasis on collective and caring praxis looking towards both a sustainable future and the possibilities of the immediate present. A degrowth approach to archaeology can provide a useful supplement to existing critiques and proposed alternatives to current practices. Degrowth proposals such as reorienting economic behaviours towards cooperative, convivial and dépense (communal use of surplus) activities while freeing people to pursue work they find meaningful have potential applications in archaeological practice that address some of the problems currently facing the discipline.
{"title":"Degrowth and a sustainable future for archaeology","authors":"J. Flexner","doi":"10.1017/S1380203820000203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203820000203","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It is increasingly acknowledged that 21st-century archaeology faces serious challenges from a variety of directions, ranging from the theoretical to the practical. Above all, the discipline’s entanglement with capitalism, capitalist ideologies and capitalist institutions is simply unsustainable. The concept of degrowth involves a reconceptualization of archaeology’s possible future(s) in terms of a withdrawal from capitalism and an emphasis on collective and caring praxis looking towards both a sustainable future and the possibilities of the immediate present. A degrowth approach to archaeology can provide a useful supplement to existing critiques and proposed alternatives to current practices. Degrowth proposals such as reorienting economic behaviours towards cooperative, convivial and dépense (communal use of surplus) activities while freeing people to pursue work they find meaningful have potential applications in archaeological practice that address some of the problems currently facing the discipline.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203820000203","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49465341","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 : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203820000240
T. Rico
[ ]the visible rejection of Syrian refugees across many European countries, contemporary with the free circulation and consumption of the replica, undermines efforts to construct a global discourse that addresses the human scale of the Syrian conflict (Cunliffe 2016;Thompson 2017) [ ]the apparent applause that this replica has received across the world evokes the strong rejection of the reproduction of the Ishtar Gate in Babylon, Iraq, which was disassembled through excavation to be reassembled in Berlin in the 1930s [ ]calling for decolonizing practices in heritage preservation must revolve around an exploration of the channels of authority and expertise that give shape to specific safeguarding narratives, rather than focus on repackaging preservation strategies under new codifications and techniques that result in the same colonizing process of heritagization nonetheless
{"title":"The second coming of Palmyra. A technological prison","authors":"T. Rico","doi":"10.1017/S1380203820000240","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203820000240","url":null,"abstract":"[ ]the visible rejection of Syrian refugees across many European countries, contemporary with the free circulation and consumption of the replica, undermines efforts to construct a global discourse that addresses the human scale of the Syrian conflict (Cunliffe 2016;Thompson 2017) [ ]the apparent applause that this replica has received across the world evokes the strong rejection of the reproduction of the Ishtar Gate in Babylon, Iraq, which was disassembled through excavation to be reassembled in Berlin in the 1930s [ ]calling for decolonizing practices in heritage preservation must revolve around an exploration of the channels of authority and expertise that give shape to specific safeguarding narratives, rather than focus on repackaging preservation strategies under new codifications and techniques that result in the same colonizing process of heritagization nonetheless","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203820000240","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46039118","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 : 2020-11-13DOI: 10.1017/S1380203820000215
Eloise Govier
Abstract Can we theorize the relationship between discourses that antagonize each other? In a recent article, Arponen et al. demonstrate the tension between two different research models, and spotlight the compelling impact these methods have on archaeological interpretation. In response to their observations, this paper theorizes how we can understand the position of the researcher in relation to the events they analyse. Using Michel Foucault’s approach to the ‘discursive formation’ and Karen Barad’s theory of agential realism, in this reaction I argue that focusing on a single and most important point (the crux) is problematic, and theoretically outline how creating conceptual space for polymorphous causality can aid the analysis of a ‘dispersion of events’.
{"title":"Power and all its guises. Environmental determinism and locating ‘the crux of the matter’","authors":"Eloise Govier","doi":"10.1017/S1380203820000215","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203820000215","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Can we theorize the relationship between discourses that antagonize each other? In a recent article, Arponen et al. demonstrate the tension between two different research models, and spotlight the compelling impact these methods have on archaeological interpretation. In response to their observations, this paper theorizes how we can understand the position of the researcher in relation to the events they analyse. Using Michel Foucault’s approach to the ‘discursive formation’ and Karen Barad’s theory of agential realism, in this reaction I argue that focusing on a single and most important point (the crux) is problematic, and theoretically outline how creating conceptual space for polymorphous causality can aid the analysis of a ‘dispersion of events’.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203820000215","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42010489","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 : 2020-08-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203822000344
J. C. Barrett
Elevated NT-proBNP independently predicts all-cause mortality and morbidity of patients with AF. However, higher NT-proBNP levels may be associated with different conditions, and the pivotal roles of those factors evaluate further large-scale, prospective randomized clinical trials. In addition, measuring not only NT proBNP, but also troponin T and I (7), is an easy method to assess increased risk for stroke and mortality in patients with AF. These markers might be useful in clinical practice. Finally, one should keep in mind that NT-proBNP alone without other predictive markers may not give exact information to clinicians about the prognostic indication of patients; thus, NT-proBNP should be evaluated along with other serum mortality predictive markers.
{"title":"Reply","authors":"J. C. Barrett","doi":"10.1017/S1380203822000344","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203822000344","url":null,"abstract":"Elevated NT-proBNP independently predicts all-cause mortality and morbidity of patients with AF. However, higher NT-proBNP levels may be associated with different conditions, and the pivotal roles of those factors evaluate further large-scale, prospective randomized clinical trials. In addition, measuring not only NT proBNP, but also troponin T and I (7), is an easy method to assess increased risk for stroke and mortality in patients with AF. These markers might be useful in clinical practice. Finally, one should keep in mind that NT-proBNP alone without other predictive markers may not give exact information to clinicians about the prognostic indication of patients; thus, NT-proBNP should be evaluated along with other serum mortality predictive markers.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43787959","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 : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1017/S1380203820000197
Anwen Cooper, D. Garrow, C. Gibson
Abstract This paper critically evaluates how archaeologists define ‘grave goods’ in relation to the full spectrum of depositional contexts available to people in the past, including hoards, rivers and other ‘special’ deposits. Developing the argument that variations in artefact deposition over time and space can only be understood if different ‘types’ of find location are considered together holistically, we contend that it is also vital to look at the points where traditionally defined contexts of deposition become blurred into one another. In this paper, we investigate one particular such category – body-less object deposits at funerary sites – in later prehistoric Britain. This category of evidence has never previously been analysed collectively, let alone over the extended time period considered here. On the basis of a substantial body of evidence collected as part of a nationwide survey, we demonstrate that body-less object deposits were a significant component of funerary sites during later prehistory. Consequently, we go on to question whether human remains were actually always a necessary element of funerary deposits for prehistoric people, suggesting that the absence of human bone could be a positive attribute rather than simply a negative outcome of taphonomic processes. We also argue that modern, fixed depositional categories sometimes serve to mask a full understanding of the complex realities of past practice and ask whether it might be productive in some instances to move beyond interpretively confining terms such as ‘grave’, ‘hoard’ and ‘cenotaph’. Our research demonstrates that is it not only interesting in itself to scrutinize archaeological evidence that does not easily fit into traditional narratives, but that the process of doing so also sheds new light on the validity of our present-day categories, enabling deeper insights into how people in the past ordered their material and conceptual worlds. Whilst our main focus is later prehistoric Britain, the issues we consider are potentially relevant across all periods and regions.
{"title":"Spectrums of depositional practice in later prehistoric Britain and beyond. Grave goods, hoards and deposits ‘in between’","authors":"Anwen Cooper, D. Garrow, C. Gibson","doi":"10.1017/S1380203820000197","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203820000197","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper critically evaluates how archaeologists define ‘grave goods’ in relation to the full spectrum of depositional contexts available to people in the past, including hoards, rivers and other ‘special’ deposits. Developing the argument that variations in artefact deposition over time and space can only be understood if different ‘types’ of find location are considered together holistically, we contend that it is also vital to look at the points where traditionally defined contexts of deposition become blurred into one another. In this paper, we investigate one particular such category – body-less object deposits at funerary sites – in later prehistoric Britain. This category of evidence has never previously been analysed collectively, let alone over the extended time period considered here. On the basis of a substantial body of evidence collected as part of a nationwide survey, we demonstrate that body-less object deposits were a significant component of funerary sites during later prehistory. Consequently, we go on to question whether human remains were actually always a necessary element of funerary deposits for prehistoric people, suggesting that the absence of human bone could be a positive attribute rather than simply a negative outcome of taphonomic processes. We also argue that modern, fixed depositional categories sometimes serve to mask a full understanding of the complex realities of past practice and ask whether it might be productive in some instances to move beyond interpretively confining terms such as ‘grave’, ‘hoard’ and ‘cenotaph’. Our research demonstrates that is it not only interesting in itself to scrutinize archaeological evidence that does not easily fit into traditional narratives, but that the process of doing so also sheds new light on the validity of our present-day categories, enabling deeper insights into how people in the past ordered their material and conceptual worlds. Whilst our main focus is later prehistoric Britain, the issues we consider are potentially relevant across all periods and regions.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203820000197","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45142321","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 : 2020-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203820000100
Sam Holley-Kline
Abstract This article discusses the American Compañía Stanford’s efforts to drill an oil well on the outskirts of the archaeological site of El Tajín, Mexico, during the 1930s. Drawing on recent scholarly efforts to think beyond archaeology and the nation state, this article problematizes the notion of a unitary state behind the concept of nationalist archaeology, the constitution of archaeology and extractive industry as separate spheres, and their apparent mutual exclusivity. Exploring the negotiations between site guards, archaeologists, inspectors, oil company officials and labourers shows that different state actors worked at cross-purposes, and that the nominally separate spheres of nationalist archaeology and foreign oil extraction were in fact characterized by the sharing of infrastructure, equipment, expertise and labour. Consequently, this article advocates for close attention to the administration and management of archaeology in specific historical contexts, demonstrating that it is more reasonable to assume archaeology’s imbrications with the nation state and extractive industries.
{"title":"Nationalist archaeology and foreign oil exploration in El Tajín, Mexico, 1935–1940","authors":"Sam Holley-Kline","doi":"10.1017/S1380203820000100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203820000100","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article discusses the American Compañía Stanford’s efforts to drill an oil well on the outskirts of the archaeological site of El Tajín, Mexico, during the 1930s. Drawing on recent scholarly efforts to think beyond archaeology and the nation state, this article problematizes the notion of a unitary state behind the concept of nationalist archaeology, the constitution of archaeology and extractive industry as separate spheres, and their apparent mutual exclusivity. Exploring the negotiations between site guards, archaeologists, inspectors, oil company officials and labourers shows that different state actors worked at cross-purposes, and that the nominally separate spheres of nationalist archaeology and foreign oil extraction were in fact characterized by the sharing of infrastructure, equipment, expertise and labour. Consequently, this article advocates for close attention to the administration and management of archaeology in specific historical contexts, demonstrating that it is more reasonable to assume archaeology’s imbrications with the nation state and extractive industries.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203820000100","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42633180","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：