Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2021.2010125
Alexander Bauer, R. Preucel
Gavin Lucas and Chris Witmore pose the question of what a commitment to theory means in the absence of ‘paradigms.’ We take up their question and seek to engage with and critique the answer that they offer, focusing on three interrelated areas: first, their characterization of ‘strong’ vs. ‘weak’ theory; second, their move to elevate an object-centred approach as a corrective to earlier ‘top-down’ modes of interpretation; third, their discussion of relevance as an emergent process. We close with some thoughts of our own about the future of theory in archaeology. In the spirit of a ‘hermeneutics of generosity’ (Preucel 2021), we seek to engage in a productive dialogue where we take their ideas seriously and offer our own perspectives that are strongly coloured by our commitment to pragmatism and our interest in semiotics. Lucas and Witmore begin by reflecting upon the disunification of the field over the past two decades. They suggest that while theory may not be ‘dead’ (Bintliff and Pearce 2011, Thomas 2015), there seems to be an end to the era of grand theories that sought to synthesize knowledge under a single, overarching paradigm. Sceptical of arguments for new paradigms (e.g. Kristiansen 2014), they make the case that we have entered a phase where concepts and ideas such as gender, agency, and materiality are supplanting approaches such as Marxism, structuralism, processualism, and postprocessualism. They regard this theoretical pluralism as paradigm driven in the sense that it relies on models, patterns, and precedent and seek to challenge us to think more deeply about the work that theory does. They then make a distinction between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ theory (borrowing from Sedgwick 1997). Strong theory, they argue, is characterized by ‘all those – isms and ologies’ we teach our undergraduate students. It is heavy-handed and acts to place things in readymade boxes as a way of satisfying a priori ideas. They assert that for far too long, archaeologists have relied on paradigmatic strong theories to make ‘mute stones speak.’ They advocate instead for weak theory, an approach that ‘hesitates in the face of things and even sets out on a different path should the situation deem it.’ Pétursdóttir and Olsen (2018, p. 105), whom they cite, characterize weak theory as a theory ‘that replaces suspicion and paranoia with trust and affinity, and as a result becomes vulnerable and mutable.’ While it is true that much ‘strong’ theory can be limiting and proscriptive (e.g. selectionism), we do not see how their understanding of ‘weak theory’ improves upon the approaches advocated by many archaeologists over the past three decades. Indeed, these earlier approaches whether they be characterized as ‘hermeneutics’ (Hodder 1991), ‘tacking back and forth’ (Wylie 1989), or ‘semiosis’ (Preucel and Bauer 2001), all recognize the act of interpretation as provisional, open-ended, and
{"title":"Vibrant Theory","authors":"Alexander Bauer, R. Preucel","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2021.2010125","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2021.2010125","url":null,"abstract":"Gavin Lucas and Chris Witmore pose the question of what a commitment to theory means in the absence of ‘paradigms.’ We take up their question and seek to engage with and critique the answer that they offer, focusing on three interrelated areas: first, their characterization of ‘strong’ vs. ‘weak’ theory; second, their move to elevate an object-centred approach as a corrective to earlier ‘top-down’ modes of interpretation; third, their discussion of relevance as an emergent process. We close with some thoughts of our own about the future of theory in archaeology. In the spirit of a ‘hermeneutics of generosity’ (Preucel 2021), we seek to engage in a productive dialogue where we take their ideas seriously and offer our own perspectives that are strongly coloured by our commitment to pragmatism and our interest in semiotics. Lucas and Witmore begin by reflecting upon the disunification of the field over the past two decades. They suggest that while theory may not be ‘dead’ (Bintliff and Pearce 2011, Thomas 2015), there seems to be an end to the era of grand theories that sought to synthesize knowledge under a single, overarching paradigm. Sceptical of arguments for new paradigms (e.g. Kristiansen 2014), they make the case that we have entered a phase where concepts and ideas such as gender, agency, and materiality are supplanting approaches such as Marxism, structuralism, processualism, and postprocessualism. They regard this theoretical pluralism as paradigm driven in the sense that it relies on models, patterns, and precedent and seek to challenge us to think more deeply about the work that theory does. They then make a distinction between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ theory (borrowing from Sedgwick 1997). Strong theory, they argue, is characterized by ‘all those – isms and ologies’ we teach our undergraduate students. It is heavy-handed and acts to place things in readymade boxes as a way of satisfying a priori ideas. They assert that for far too long, archaeologists have relied on paradigmatic strong theories to make ‘mute stones speak.’ They advocate instead for weak theory, an approach that ‘hesitates in the face of things and even sets out on a different path should the situation deem it.’ Pétursdóttir and Olsen (2018, p. 105), whom they cite, characterize weak theory as a theory ‘that replaces suspicion and paranoia with trust and affinity, and as a result becomes vulnerable and mutable.’ While it is true that much ‘strong’ theory can be limiting and proscriptive (e.g. selectionism), we do not see how their understanding of ‘weak theory’ improves upon the approaches advocated by many archaeologists over the past three decades. Indeed, these earlier approaches whether they be characterized as ‘hermeneutics’ (Hodder 1991), ‘tacking back and forth’ (Wylie 1989), or ‘semiosis’ (Preucel and Bauer 2001), all recognize the act of interpretation as provisional, open-ended, and","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44846450","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2022.2052746
Ariadne Kostomitsopoulou Marketou
Contrasting Western views of colour as a de-materialised, abstract value, this paper approaches the technologies of colourant production in Mediterranean antiquity as the active processes of colour materialization by examining the late Hellenistic workshop found on the Aegean Island of Kos as a case study. The challenging pyrotechnological process of Egyptian blue production is the focus of this paper, which aims to illustrate the sequence of material transformations followed to create this saturated blue pigment. Despite the widespread use of Egyptian blue in the ancient Mediterranean world, only scarce archaeological evidence of production sites exists. The Koan workshop, containing an assemblage of successfully and unsuccessfully produced Egyptian blue pellets alongside amorphous lead lumps, litharge rods, and earth pigments, provides the material remains to study the pigment’s manufacture. The process of making blue in the context of this workshop can be broken down into two phases. The first phase includes the production of the initial Egyptian blue pellets and the second the further processing for the creation of different tonalities of blue. Bridging the dematerialised notion of colour to the material remains of production, this paper brings us closer to appreciating ancient conceptualizations of colour.
{"title":"The materialisation of colour: Reconstructing Egyptian blue manufacture on late Hellenistic Kos","authors":"Ariadne Kostomitsopoulou Marketou","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2022.2052746","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2022.2052746","url":null,"abstract":"Contrasting Western views of colour as a de-materialised, abstract value, this paper approaches the technologies of colourant production in Mediterranean antiquity as the active processes of colour materialization by examining the late Hellenistic workshop found on the Aegean Island of Kos as a case study. The challenging pyrotechnological process of Egyptian blue production is the focus of this paper, which aims to illustrate the sequence of material transformations followed to create this saturated blue pigment. Despite the widespread use of Egyptian blue in the ancient Mediterranean world, only scarce archaeological evidence of production sites exists. The Koan workshop, containing an assemblage of successfully and unsuccessfully produced Egyptian blue pellets alongside amorphous lead lumps, litharge rods, and earth pigments, provides the material remains to study the pigment’s manufacture. The process of making blue in the context of this workshop can be broken down into two phases. The first phase includes the production of the initial Egyptian blue pellets and the second the further processing for the creation of different tonalities of blue. Bridging the dematerialised notion of colour to the material remains of production, this paper brings us closer to appreciating ancient conceptualizations of colour.","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48577280","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2022.2065527
Stefanie Schaefer-Di Maida
The book is a comprehensive presentation of the Bronze Age society of Britain and Ireland and con-sists of three main parts: ‘Gifts’, ‘Dwellings’ and ‘Landmarks’ with kinship as core in the narratives. Johnston starts by introducing the theoretical and terminological foundations of his work. He criticizes approaches that use terms that describe and categor-ize a Bronze Age society in general and favours instead a relational approach that keeps the classifi-cation of societies open and works in a descriptive way. He favours a perspective emphasizing relations and open dialogue between scientific and social enquiries, providing the premises for his work. Johnston's book therefore provides a well of examples and descriptions, and this book review is a reflection of that. indicate
{"title":"Bronze Age Worlds. A Social Prehistory of Britain and Ireland","authors":"Stefanie Schaefer-Di Maida","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2022.2065527","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2022.2065527","url":null,"abstract":"The book is a comprehensive presentation of the Bronze Age society of Britain and Ireland and con-sists of three main parts: ‘Gifts’, ‘Dwellings’ and ‘Landmarks’ with kinship as core in the narratives. Johnston starts by introducing the theoretical and terminological foundations of his work. He criticizes approaches that use terms that describe and categor-ize a Bronze Age society in general and favours instead a relational approach that keeps the classifi-cation of societies open and works in a descriptive way. He favours a perspective emphasizing relations and open dialogue between scientific and social enquiries, providing the premises for his work. Johnston's book therefore provides a well of examples and descriptions, and this book review is a reflection of that. indicate","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44684455","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2021.2010127
Christopher L. Witmore, G. Lucas
ions of the world they observed, they also gained greater recognition through the replicability of those abstractions in other situations. If it would be overly reductive to argue that archaeologists as consumers of borrowed theory entered into a pyramid scheme that ultimately produced diminishing returns, then it would be equally one-sided to suggest strong theory only led to redundancy. Rather, the key Theory Above? Theory Alongside? 93
{"title":"Theory Above? Theory Alongside?","authors":"Christopher L. Witmore, G. Lucas","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2021.2010127","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2021.2010127","url":null,"abstract":"ions of the world they observed, they also gained greater recognition through the replicability of those abstractions in other situations. If it would be overly reductive to argue that archaeologists as consumers of borrowed theory entered into a pyramid scheme that ultimately produced diminishing returns, then it would be equally one-sided to suggest strong theory only led to redundancy. Rather, the key Theory Above? Theory Alongside? 93","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42057998","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2022.2052747
M. Cornelissen, Christian Auf der Maur, Thomas Reitmaier
The retreating Brunifirn glacier in the Alps of central Switzerland exposed a rock crystal extraction site exploited during the Early and Late Mesolithic. It has yielded organic objects preserved in the ice as well as rock crystal and quartz extraction waste, knapping debris, and tools.
{"title":"A Glacially Preserved Mesolithic Rock Crystal Extraction Site in the Swiss Alps","authors":"M. Cornelissen, Christian Auf der Maur, Thomas Reitmaier","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2022.2052747","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2022.2052747","url":null,"abstract":"The retreating Brunifirn glacier in the Alps of central Switzerland exposed a rock crystal extraction site exploited during the Early and Late Mesolithic. It has yielded organic objects preserved in the ice as well as rock crystal and quartz extraction waste, knapping debris, and tools.","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45777416","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2021.2010123
Marko M. Marila
Systematic theorizing in archaeology today is widely regarded as a thing of the past. The two principal reasons why theory has become so diluted are those theoretical positions addressed also by Lucas and Witmore: (1) the black-boxing tactics of scientific archaeology, where the inner workings of its apparatuses are thought to be so simple or particularistic that their outputs or the societal effects thereof need not be problematized, and (2) the ontologisation of archaeology’s epistemology and the related idea that any indigenous ontology is a better epistemology. Both are good examples of theorizing to the point of systematically and uncritically excluding any theoretical system in conflict. Against this backdrop, I read the article by Lucas and Witmore as a call for a return to the systematic thinking of the basic questions concerning the definition and pragmatics of theory in archaeology: what is it that we talk about when we use the word theory, and why do our theoretical commitments matter? Theoretical archaeology has been around for as long as the discipline has existed, but archaeologists did not always use the word theory (e.g., Müller 1897, pp. 689–702). To add to the confusion, the history of explicitly theoretical archaeology is that of theoretical atomization characterized by a shift from epistemological matters pertaining to scientific explanation in the new archaeology, to an emphasis on the social concerns in the interpretive archaeologies, and, more recently, to the extension of theory to also pertain to the speculative realm of objects. I want to use this opportunity to talk about archaeological theory as a system of thinking. I try to do so in a way that is historically sensitive but also cautious of the definitions of ‘systematic’ and ‘thinking’. In doing so I am also, at least implicitly, addressing the fault lines of contemporary archaeological theorizing and the opportunities we might have for thinking across the disparate realms of ontology and epistemology. In archaeology, systematic thinking means engaging in (at least) four types of theory. I use the term component to stress their systematic entanglement: 1. The empirical component. With empirical I refer to the type of low-level inferences and generalizations or the straight-forward creation of ideas from the sensuous observation of a given body of archaeological material without much theoretical intervention or critical reflection. What the empirical component then suggests is not a naive empiricism but an empirical sensitivity; that some sort evolutionary or cosmological closeness – however translative – is to be expected between impression and object. In my reading, the empirical component is the same as Lucas and Witmore’s fidelity: theories characterized by unfinishedness and slowness as well as the patience to resist the urge to
{"title":"A Theoretically Committed Archaeology is a Civilised Archaeology","authors":"Marko M. Marila","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2021.2010123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2021.2010123","url":null,"abstract":"Systematic theorizing in archaeology today is widely regarded as a thing of the past. The two principal reasons why theory has become so diluted are those theoretical positions addressed also by Lucas and Witmore: (1) the black-boxing tactics of scientific archaeology, where the inner workings of its apparatuses are thought to be so simple or particularistic that their outputs or the societal effects thereof need not be problematized, and (2) the ontologisation of archaeology’s epistemology and the related idea that any indigenous ontology is a better epistemology. Both are good examples of theorizing to the point of systematically and uncritically excluding any theoretical system in conflict. Against this backdrop, I read the article by Lucas and Witmore as a call for a return to the systematic thinking of the basic questions concerning the definition and pragmatics of theory in archaeology: what is it that we talk about when we use the word theory, and why do our theoretical commitments matter? Theoretical archaeology has been around for as long as the discipline has existed, but archaeologists did not always use the word theory (e.g., Müller 1897, pp. 689–702). To add to the confusion, the history of explicitly theoretical archaeology is that of theoretical atomization characterized by a shift from epistemological matters pertaining to scientific explanation in the new archaeology, to an emphasis on the social concerns in the interpretive archaeologies, and, more recently, to the extension of theory to also pertain to the speculative realm of objects. I want to use this opportunity to talk about archaeological theory as a system of thinking. I try to do so in a way that is historically sensitive but also cautious of the definitions of ‘systematic’ and ‘thinking’. In doing so I am also, at least implicitly, addressing the fault lines of contemporary archaeological theorizing and the opportunities we might have for thinking across the disparate realms of ontology and epistemology. In archaeology, systematic thinking means engaging in (at least) four types of theory. I use the term component to stress their systematic entanglement: 1. The empirical component. With empirical I refer to the type of low-level inferences and generalizations or the straight-forward creation of ideas from the sensuous observation of a given body of archaeological material without much theoretical intervention or critical reflection. What the empirical component then suggests is not a naive empiricism but an empirical sensitivity; that some sort evolutionary or cosmological closeness – however translative – is to be expected between impression and object. In my reading, the empirical component is the same as Lucas and Witmore’s fidelity: theories characterized by unfinishedness and slowness as well as the patience to resist the urge to","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42136860","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2021.2010798
Elin Ahlin Sundman
Masculinities can be regarded as performative configurations of practices. The practices in which individuals engage define the concept of masculinity, and at the same time shape the male bodies performing them. Previous research has suggested that the use of physical violence – in the right manner – was an important way of enacting masculinity in medieval northern Europe. Acts of violence can leave identifiable marks on the body, and be detectable in human skeletal remains. This case study analysed individuals with weapon-related trauma, buried at the Dominican priory in Västerås, Sweden (thirteenth to sixteenth century AD). It focuses on ten males with injuries sustained around or shortly before the time of death, and the results are used to examine how masculinities were performed in activities associated with violence and battle, and how warrior masculinities were embodied. The text discusses battle-related activities, such as fighting, fleeing, being injured, healing and dying.
{"title":"Diverse Masculinities in Violence and Warfare: A Case Study of Individuals with Perimortem Weapon-related Trauma Buried at a Dominican Priory in Västerås, Sweden","authors":"Elin Ahlin Sundman","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2021.2010798","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2021.2010798","url":null,"abstract":"Masculinities can be regarded as performative configurations of practices. The practices in which individuals engage define the concept of masculinity, and at the same time shape the male bodies performing them. Previous research has suggested that the use of physical violence – in the right manner – was an important way of enacting masculinity in medieval northern Europe. Acts of violence can leave identifiable marks on the body, and be detectable in human skeletal remains. This case study analysed individuals with weapon-related trauma, buried at the Dominican priory in Västerås, Sweden (thirteenth to sixteenth century AD). It focuses on ten males with injuries sustained around or shortly before the time of death, and the results are used to examine how masculinities were performed in activities associated with violence and battle, and how warrior masculinities were embodied. The text discusses battle-related activities, such as fighting, fleeing, being injured, healing and dying.","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44916797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2021.2010124
Anna Severine Beck
It is with great interest, that I have read Gavin Lucas’ and Christopher Witmore’s thoughtprovoking paper on the commitment to theory in contemporary archaeology. Particularly, as the central question – what is theory in archaeology and how does it work – resonates with thoughts coming out of my own recent explorations of the conditions and processes of knowledge formation in development-led archaeology (Beck 2019, 2021, in press). Today, development-led archaeology is in a situation where increasing demands of societal relevance and decreasing understanding among developers and politicians simultaneously challenge the existing practice and create a need for rethinking how things are done (e.g. Statsrevisorerne 2018, Milek 2018, Barreiro et al. 2018, Knoop et al. 2021). At the same time, I find that the challenges development-led archaeology meets today serve as an excellent illustration of the conflict between ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ theorization as described by Lucas and Witmore. Therefore, I will follow their call and join the conversation by asking, if development-led archaeology could be a hitherto overlooked frontier for rethinking theory in archaeology? My studies show that knowledge formation within development-led archaeology is not directed by any specific theoretical paradigm in the traditional sense but instead refers to a messy, complex, undefined – and sometimes even contradictory – mix of ideas including elements from all of the major archaeological paradigms. Discussing theory in development-led archaeology is therefore not a matter of discussing one theoretical paradigm against another. Instead, the formation of knowledge can be said to take place in a tension between two different kinds of theorization: the practice of fieldwork and the structure of heritage management. The practice of fieldwork includes the processes of uncovering, exploring, interpreting and documenting the archaeological material as a source for theorization (Edgeworth 2012, Marila 2017, Sørensen 2018). Even if the actual practices can vary, these processes can be recognized in all kinds of archaeological fieldwork. What differentiates fieldwork in development-led archaeology from other archaeological fieldwork, though, is that the site has been picked out by modern development, and not as the result of a long and thorough research process. The object of research, thus, is most often unknown or at least only provisionally identified. This circumstance, I will argue, gives the fieldwork in development-led archaeology a particular sensitivity towards the unpredicted and possible, which necessarily puts the investigated object at the centre. Following the object, moreover, means that methods and strategies need to be flexible and ready to adapt if demanded by the object and can as such not always be predefined (Andersson et al. 2010,
{"title":"An Overlooked Frontier? Scenes from Development-led Archaeology Today","authors":"Anna Severine Beck","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2021.2010124","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2021.2010124","url":null,"abstract":"It is with great interest, that I have read Gavin Lucas’ and Christopher Witmore’s thoughtprovoking paper on the commitment to theory in contemporary archaeology. Particularly, as the central question – what is theory in archaeology and how does it work – resonates with thoughts coming out of my own recent explorations of the conditions and processes of knowledge formation in development-led archaeology (Beck 2019, 2021, in press). Today, development-led archaeology is in a situation where increasing demands of societal relevance and decreasing understanding among developers and politicians simultaneously challenge the existing practice and create a need for rethinking how things are done (e.g. Statsrevisorerne 2018, Milek 2018, Barreiro et al. 2018, Knoop et al. 2021). At the same time, I find that the challenges development-led archaeology meets today serve as an excellent illustration of the conflict between ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ theorization as described by Lucas and Witmore. Therefore, I will follow their call and join the conversation by asking, if development-led archaeology could be a hitherto overlooked frontier for rethinking theory in archaeology? My studies show that knowledge formation within development-led archaeology is not directed by any specific theoretical paradigm in the traditional sense but instead refers to a messy, complex, undefined – and sometimes even contradictory – mix of ideas including elements from all of the major archaeological paradigms. Discussing theory in development-led archaeology is therefore not a matter of discussing one theoretical paradigm against another. Instead, the formation of knowledge can be said to take place in a tension between two different kinds of theorization: the practice of fieldwork and the structure of heritage management. The practice of fieldwork includes the processes of uncovering, exploring, interpreting and documenting the archaeological material as a source for theorization (Edgeworth 2012, Marila 2017, Sørensen 2018). Even if the actual practices can vary, these processes can be recognized in all kinds of archaeological fieldwork. What differentiates fieldwork in development-led archaeology from other archaeological fieldwork, though, is that the site has been picked out by modern development, and not as the result of a long and thorough research process. The object of research, thus, is most often unknown or at least only provisionally identified. This circumstance, I will argue, gives the fieldwork in development-led archaeology a particular sensitivity towards the unpredicted and possible, which necessarily puts the investigated object at the centre. Following the object, moreover, means that methods and strategies need to be flexible and ready to adapt if demanded by the object and can as such not always be predefined (Andersson et al. 2010,","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46009869","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2022.2071331
S. Westling, E. Fredh, P. Lagerås, K. Oma
Major changes in the archaeological material in Rogaland, southwestern Norway, from the mid-6th century AD have been interpreted as a population decline and an economic recession connected to the 6th century crisis. This event is known from historical and archaeological sources in continental Europe and has recently gained much attention in the Scandinavian archaeological debate. Sudden climate change, pandemic and collapsed trading networks likely induced new conditions, which would have had a major impact on the society in southwestern Norway. This paper uses plant-macrofossil data, supplemented by zooarchaeological data, and radiocarbon dates, from two archaeological sites with different prerequisites and trajectories, to reconstruct agricultural development. Based on this reconstruction, it explores agricultural resilience in connection with the 6th century crisis and investigates the merits of various agricultural strategies and adaptations. The macrofossil data reveals a change in crop composition, with a temporary introduction of rye at one of the sites, suggesting an adjustment to new circumstances. The studied sites display different subsistence strategies based on local conditions, and the data suggests complete abandonment of the site that probably depended on trade, while the people living at the more self-sufficient site were able to adapt their agriculture and survive the crisis.
{"title":"Agricultural Resilience during the 6th Century Crisis: Exploring Strategies and Adaptations Using Plant-Macrofossil Data from Hove-Sørbø and Forsandmoen in Southwestern Norway","authors":"S. Westling, E. Fredh, P. Lagerås, K. Oma","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2022.2071331","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2022.2071331","url":null,"abstract":"Major changes in the archaeological material in Rogaland, southwestern Norway, from the mid-6th century AD have been interpreted as a population decline and an economic recession connected to the 6th century crisis. This event is known from historical and archaeological sources in continental Europe and has recently gained much attention in the Scandinavian archaeological debate. Sudden climate change, pandemic and collapsed trading networks likely induced new conditions, which would have had a major impact on the society in southwestern Norway. This paper uses plant-macrofossil data, supplemented by zooarchaeological data, and radiocarbon dates, from two archaeological sites with different prerequisites and trajectories, to reconstruct agricultural development. Based on this reconstruction, it explores agricultural resilience in connection with the 6th century crisis and investigates the merits of various agricultural strategies and adaptations. The macrofossil data reveals a change in crop composition, with a temporary introduction of rye at one of the sites, suggesting an adjustment to new circumstances. The studied sites display different subsistence strategies based on local conditions, and the data suggests complete abandonment of the site that probably depended on trade, while the people living at the more self-sufficient site were able to adapt their agriculture and survive the crisis.","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43466786","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-17DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2021.2010126
Matthew H. Johnson
Gavin Lucas and Christopher Witmore have written a thoughtful, engaging and well argued article. As with their previous work, their arguments encourage the reader to think about the nature and practice of archaeology in new ways. They raise questions about how we practice archaeology that are quite simple but quite profound. In this brief response, I want to respectfully differ over two aspects of their overall thesis. I am not persuaded that there is, or has been, a decisive move away from what Lucas and Witmore term paradigmatic thought and strong theory. First, as they point out, in some circles strong theory is stronger than ever: they mention Kristiansen and others, and could have pointed to Kintigh et al. (2014), which was a quite explicit attempt to impose a research agenda on the discipline, and to Kohler et al. (2017). The co-existence of stronger-than-strong theory of this kind with the ‘weaker’ approaches and sensibilities advocated by Lucas and Witmore might suggest not a shift from one mode to another, but rather a fragmentation in archaeological thinking and practice. Alternatively, it might suggest that we are mistaken in seeing strong theory and weak theory as competing. I suggest that we might see strong and weak theory instead as mutually interdependent. Weak theory is only possible, can only carve out an intellectual space for itself, within a wider paradigm that is broadly post-positivist and dare I say it postmodern. Such a comment may sound out-of-date but I think it still retains validity. I suggest that strong theory may not be overtly articulated within the sort of account offered by Lucas and Witmore but it is very much present nevertheless. Consider the very practical question of how it is that Witmore came to be doing archaeological research in Napflion in the first place. To obtain the travel and project funds, he must have written a formal proposal complete with research design. Explicitly or implicitly, such documents tend to be framed around Big Questions and to lay out a formal structure of archaeological research in which the collection of evidence is brought to bear on moreor-less paradigmatic questions. I have never seen or refereed a research proposal that foregrounded a process of ‘slow archaeology’ or which proposed the sort of archaeological process presented by Lucas and Witmore. I am pointing here not just towards the interdependence of strong and weak theory, but also towards a more basic disconnect between what archaeologists say they do and what they actually do. Archaeologists (some? many?) do, in practice, spend much of their time engaging in the sort of slow archaeology described and dissected in the Napflion and pottery analysis vignettes. This kind of practice, however, is systematically written out of most theoretical accounts. It is a major achievement of constructivist approaches to have written it back in. I have a second respectful difference, which is the degree to which a shift to weak theo
{"title":"Strength in Weakness","authors":"Matthew H. Johnson","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2021.2010126","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2021.2010126","url":null,"abstract":"Gavin Lucas and Christopher Witmore have written a thoughtful, engaging and well argued article. As with their previous work, their arguments encourage the reader to think about the nature and practice of archaeology in new ways. They raise questions about how we practice archaeology that are quite simple but quite profound. In this brief response, I want to respectfully differ over two aspects of their overall thesis. I am not persuaded that there is, or has been, a decisive move away from what Lucas and Witmore term paradigmatic thought and strong theory. First, as they point out, in some circles strong theory is stronger than ever: they mention Kristiansen and others, and could have pointed to Kintigh et al. (2014), which was a quite explicit attempt to impose a research agenda on the discipline, and to Kohler et al. (2017). The co-existence of stronger-than-strong theory of this kind with the ‘weaker’ approaches and sensibilities advocated by Lucas and Witmore might suggest not a shift from one mode to another, but rather a fragmentation in archaeological thinking and practice. Alternatively, it might suggest that we are mistaken in seeing strong theory and weak theory as competing. I suggest that we might see strong and weak theory instead as mutually interdependent. Weak theory is only possible, can only carve out an intellectual space for itself, within a wider paradigm that is broadly post-positivist and dare I say it postmodern. Such a comment may sound out-of-date but I think it still retains validity. I suggest that strong theory may not be overtly articulated within the sort of account offered by Lucas and Witmore but it is very much present nevertheless. Consider the very practical question of how it is that Witmore came to be doing archaeological research in Napflion in the first place. To obtain the travel and project funds, he must have written a formal proposal complete with research design. Explicitly or implicitly, such documents tend to be framed around Big Questions and to lay out a formal structure of archaeological research in which the collection of evidence is brought to bear on moreor-less paradigmatic questions. I have never seen or refereed a research proposal that foregrounded a process of ‘slow archaeology’ or which proposed the sort of archaeological process presented by Lucas and Witmore. I am pointing here not just towards the interdependence of strong and weak theory, but also towards a more basic disconnect between what archaeologists say they do and what they actually do. Archaeologists (some? many?) do, in practice, spend much of their time engaging in the sort of slow archaeology described and dissected in the Napflion and pottery analysis vignettes. This kind of practice, however, is systematically written out of most theoretical accounts. It is a major achievement of constructivist approaches to have written it back in. I have a second respectful difference, which is the degree to which a shift to weak theo","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41798533","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"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：