No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The Practice of Writing and the Archaeological Process: Exploring the Ineffable and the Fable as Means to Create Knowledge Through Past Materials
Abstract
This article approaches the role of writing in the archaeological process. I revisit some earlier literature focusing on this topic within which is argued that the practice of writing participates in the shaping of the knowledge we produce about the past. This is so because writing entails a dialogue between the limits of the way we experience past materials and the limits of the languages we use to translate such experiences. In order to understand this dialogue, by following Michel de Certeau, we may ask what kind of subject are we while writing about past materials? And, how does such a practice entail a transformation of our subjectivity by seeking to create the conditions to express the difference of the past? I will discuss how this concern about the process of writing, and the exploration of different styles of narrative, help me to expand the study of late prehistory deposition contexts. By analysing the emplotment used in the study of these contexts, I will argue that deposition needs to be understood as an individual character, and not as just something resulting from practices of deposition. In arguing this, I present fable as a narrative style exploring alternative plots highlighting the irreducibility of archaeological evidences.
Neste texto analisamos a tradição de construção em negativo durante a Pré-história Recente no Sul de Portugal. Os vestígios que estudamos foram identificados no âmbito de intervenções realizadas a propósito da execução do Bloco de Rega de Brinches-Enxoé (Serpa). Num primeiro momento, discutimos as possibilidades de, na base empírica decorrente de tais intervenções, reconhecer uma unidade de estudo cuja inteligibilidade possa corresponder-se com o estudo da monumentalização da paisagem durante a Pré-história Recente. Uma vez delineada a unidade de estudo, procedemos à sua apresentação tendo em conta a morfologia, a distribuição espacial, o enquadramento cronológico e os enchimentos das estruturas. Por fim, propomos que se problematize estes vestígios como formalizações materiais do entrelaçamento de práticas de arquitetura e de práticas de arquivo, no qual são negociados o(s) horizonte(s) sentido que sustentam a construção de paisagens monumentais. Architecture and Archive. Towards an understanding of the Late Prehistory negative structures from the hills between Barranco da Morgadinha and Barranco da Laje (Serpa, Beja – South of Portugal) - This article focus on the negative construction tradition of the Late Prehistory Prehistoric in the South of Portugal. The features in study were identified during the archaeological interventions realized during the construction of the Bloco de Rega de Brinches-Enxoé (Serpa). Firstly, we discuss the possibilities to use the empirical basis produced in such interventions to formulate a unit of study, whose intelligibility may answer to the discussion of the monumentalization of the landscape during Late Prehistory. After limiting the unit of study, we present the features regarding their morphology, spatial distribution, chronology and the structures fills. Finally, we propose a discussion of these structures as material configurations of an interweaving of architecture and archive practices in which are negotiated the horizon(s) of meaning holding the construction of monumental landscapes.
How can the history of research ethics be expanded beyond the standard narrative of codification—a story that does not reach back beyond World War II—without becoming so broad as to lose all distinctiveness? This article proposes a history of research ethics focused on the “scientific self,” that is, the role-specific identity of scientists as typically described in terms of skills, competencies, qualities, or dispositions. Drawing on three agenda-setting texts from nineteenth-century history, biology, and sociology, the article argues that the “revolutions” these books sought to unleash were, among other things, revolts against inherited conceptions of scientific selfhood. They tried to redefine the scientific self in their respective fields of inquiry by advocating particular catalogs of virtues or character traits. These ideals of selfhood, their contested nature notwithstanding, translated into practice in so far as they influenced hiring and selection policies and found their way into educational systems. The project of reclaiming the scientific self as an important subject of study in the history of research ethics is not an antiquarian pursuit, but related to an ethical question faced by scientists today: How are their scientific selves being shaped by funding schemes, research evaluation protocols, and academic hiring policies?
The introduction of Object-Oriented philosophies has resulted in the development of two main attitudes to the study of the past. Some scholars have suggested the development of archaeologies that focus on the fragmentary nature of the archaeological record - inviting a more descriptive approach to doing archaeology - whereas others have used similar frameworks to revitalize the study of social processes. Both tendencies lean towards archaeologies that embrace ontological enquiry, moving away from questions of human access. In a reflection regarding things, archives and social processes, this article strives for enquiries which favour theoretical examination that encompasses the study of reality as well as the study of the ways in which archaeologists gain knowledge about the past.
Why do we still speak of foragers and farmers? The division of societies into categories including 'savage' hunter-gatherers and 'civilised' farmers has its roots in seventeenth-century northwestern Europe, but has implications for archaeologists and anthropologists today. Such concepts still provide the frameworks for much intellectual labour including university courses, academic conferences and publication, as well as providing the basis for moral and political evaluations of contemporary societies and practices for a wide range of people, from governments to development agencies, 'alternative' archaeologies and parts of the Green movement. This paper examines some of the currents which contributed towards their establishment, and argues that writing 'across' such deep-seated categories may be the only way to challenge their hegemony and develop new questions. As an example recent trends in data and interpretation of the 'mesolithic-neolithic transition' in western Europe are discussed.
In recent years, traditional models produced to ac- count for the transition to the Neolithic have been challenged with the creation of narratives that seek to portray the character of this change in specific socio- historical milieus. At the other end of the spectrum, approaches influenced by the material turn have read- dressed this context, defining the Neolithic as a spe- cific horizon within an ever-increasing entanglement. Whilst these interpretive frameworks have yet not been challenged, they might gradually give rise to a new polarization in the debate about the Mesolithic- Neolithic transition. These approaches differ not only in that they operate at different scales of analysis (lived experience, macro-scale). They ultimately echo the humanist/post-humanist debate currently held in theoretical archaeology.
In this article, I argue that neither of these ap- proaches is successful in revealing the complex set of forces that triggered the transition to the Neolithic. Drawing from this discussion, I suggest that a more comprehensive review of this context of change re- quires the fusion of elements discussed by these mod- els. This situation hastens new challenges to archaeo- logical practice, and it raises a series of questions on the current state of archaeological theory.
In this article, the author identifies the concentration principle for the accumulation of large quantities of objects in the settlements of the Balkan Neolithic and Copper Age and suggests reasons for this principle. One of the chief examples of this principle is the structured deposition of objects in pits. After the characterisation of the location of such pits - whether under houses or in the open air, there is a discussion of the forms of deposits in pits - including human bone deposits, burnt deposits and unusual combinations of rare and quotidian objects, as related to different manifestations of the life-cycle of the pits. The structure of the deposits is investigated in the light of their immense variability. Rather than attempting to ‘explain’ all the cited examples in a global, structuralist manner, the pits and their contents are interpreted in terms of local strategies of categorisation of everyday and exotic materials used in social practices. This does not exclude broader forms of prehistoric rationality, which appear to endure over a long period of time and in many different regions. These findings are related to the wider social dynamics of enchainment and accumulation - two important long-term social practices characterising the Balkan Neolithic and Copper Age.
"Archaeology has always been marked by its particular care, obligation, and loyalty to things. While archaeologists may not share similar perspectives or practices, they find common ground in their concern for objects monumental and mundane. This book considers the myriad ways that archaeologists engage with things in order to craft stories, both big and small, concerning our relations with materials and the nature of the past. Literally the "science of old things," archaeology does not discover the past as it was but must work with what remains. Such work involves the tangible mediation of past and present, of people and their cultural fabric, for things cannot be separated from society. Things are us. This book does not set forth a sweeping new theory. It does not seek to transform the discipline of archaeology. Rather, it aims to understand precisely what archaeologists do and to urge practitioners toward a renewed focus on and care for things.".
The third edition of this classic introduction to archaeological theory and method has been fully updated to address the burgeoning of theoretical debate throughout the discipline. Ian Hodder and Scott Hutson argue that archaeologists must bring to bear a variety of perspectives in the complex and uncertain task of constructing meaning from the past. While remaining centred on the importance of hermeneutics, agency and history, the authors explore cutting-edge developments in areas such as post-structuralism, neo-evolutionary theory and whole new branches of theory such as phenomenology. With the addition of two completely new chapters, the third edition of Reading the Past presents an authoritative, state-of-the-art analysis of contemporary archaeological theory. Also including new material on feminist archaeology, historical approaches such as cultural history, and theories of discourse and signs, this book represents essential reading for any student or scholar with an interest in the past.
In Experiencing the Past Michael Shanks presents an animated exploration of the character of archaeology and reclaims the sentiment and feeling which are so often lost in purely academic approaches.
The rapid development of natural scientific methods coupled with the recent popularity of new materialist philosophies in archaeological theory has raised discussion about the possibility of a return to empiricism in archaeology. While empiricism as a pragmatic philosophy is in line with archaeology’s hands-on character, the recent development has left some concerned about the vanishing role of vagueness and ambiguity in archaeological interpretation. In this setting, the exactitude of natural scientific methods is seen as a process of simplification that compromises the tacit dimensions of archaeological knowledge. This article discusses vagueness as an elementary part of all archaeological knowledge formation, with a particular emphasis on the role of perception and senses in finds analysis. Archaeological finds analysis is explored as an example of epistemologically vague and creative hypothesis formation.
The growing interest in assemblages has already opened up a number of important lines of enquiry in archaeology, from the morphogenetic capacities of matter through to a rethinking of the concept of community. In this paper I want to explore how assemblages allow us to reconceptualize the critical issue of scale. Archaeologists have vacillated between expending energy on the ‘great processes’ of change like the evolution of humanity, the colonization of the globe or the origins of agriculture, and focusing on the momentary, fleeting nature of a small-scale ethnographic present. Where archaeologists have attempted to integrate different scales the result has usually been to turn to Annales -influenced or time perspectivism-driven approaches and their fixed, linear and ontologically incompatible layers of history. In contrast, I will use assemblages to examine how we can rethink both the emergence of multiple scales and their role in history, without reducing the differences of the small-scale to an epiphenomenal outcome of larger events, or treating large-scale historical processes as mere reifications of the ‘real’ on-the-ground stuff of daily life. As we will see, this approach also has consequences for the particular kind of reality we accord to large-scale archaeological categories.
This volume provides the first critical examination of the relationship between archaeology and language, analysing the rhetorical practices through which archaeologists create representations of the past.
As it is written in site reports today, the modern language of archaeology is not a handsome tongue, efficient though it may be at conveying neutral data (another horrid word). Are there lessons to be found in the beguiling style of site reports from a couple of centuries ago? And is there more to their charm than antiquarian romance?
In this book, Graham Connah offers an overview of archaeological authorship: its diversity, its challenges, and its methodology. Based on his own experiences, he presents his personal views about the task of writing about archaeology. The book is not intended to be a technical manual. Instead, Connah aims to encourage archaeologists who write about their subject to think about the process of writing. He writes with the beginning author in mind, but the book will be of interest to all archaeologists who plan to publish their work. Connah’s overall premise is that those who write about archaeology need to be less concerned with content and more concerned with how they present it. It is not enough to be a good archaeologist. One must also become a good writer and be able to communicate effectively. Archaeology, he argues, is above all a literary discipline.
This article stipulates that vagueness is a socially important yet academically largely overlooked aspect of human interaction with the world. Vagueness and vague experiences can structure material categorisations of the world; it can contribute to the shaping of social relations and nurture the appreciation of difficult experiences. However, the recent archaeological (re)turn to science as the main provider of knowledge of the past renders vagueness futile as an empirical occurrence through its exorcism of elusiveness and ambiguity in the notorious pursuit of absolute, exact and quantifiable facts. This article challenges the pursuit and use of exact data in archaeological science and the consequential implications of the omission of vague occurrences, discussing the problem that ambiguous and absent evidence become neglected in subsequent conclusion. Second, it is demonstrated that vagueness and ambiguity can be integral to certain social and material phenomena. Third, the article examines recent archaeological analyses of burial practices in South Scandinavian passage graves from the Middle Neolithic in order to discuss the pursuit of certitude in archaeological observations and interpretations. Finally, it is argued that the idealisation of certitude in archaeological analysis needs to be complemented by an interpretative framework making it possible to recognise vagueness as a social phenomenon.
To emplot a narrative as epic is to present a story of vast scope and multiple plots as a legitimate member of a tradition of other such stories. This article argues that emplotment as epic is the broadest of three levels of plot in archaeological writings. At that level, the site monograph emerges as a characteristically archaeological form of narrative, fundamental to archaeology as a discipline and a source of chronic anxiety for archaeologists. The ‘stories’ told in site monographs are epic in length, diversity of materials covered and multiplicity of themes, plots and authors. Indeed, the more complexities of that sort the better, since those are features that help to emplot the work as good archaeology.
The paper reviews the interpretations of pits found in early Neolithic settlement sites in the Po valley of northern Italy, with particular attention paid to the concentration of late 6th-early 5th millennium Cal BC sites around Vhò (Piadena, Cremona). It argues that these are unlikely to have been pit-dwellings, despite a long tradition of interpreting them in this way. It suggests that the assemblages and associations found in the fills of some of the pits indicate the practice of structured deposition, and explores the consequences of this finding for our interpretation of sites dating from this period. © The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2008.
The assumption that the past is an infinite and plastic symbolic resource, wholly susceptible to contemporary purposes, is widespread in contemporary anthropology. It is partly rooted in Malinowski's conception of myth as social charter and partly in Durkheim's formulation concerning the cross-cultural relativity of fundamental categories of human thought. This article is a critique of this assumption, and suggests the existence of culturally variable sets of norms whose function is to regulate the inherent debatability of the past. Such norms, which vary substantively from culture to culture, are neverthless from a formal point of view subject to certain universal constraints. An example from south India is the bass for this argument, which also has implications for the theoretical analysis of social change.
The third edition of this classic introduction to archaeological theory and method has been fully updated to address the rapid development of theoretical debate throughout the discipline. Ian Hodder and Scott Hutson argue that archaeologists must consider a variety of perspectives in the complex and uncertain task of "translating the meaning of past texts into their own contemporary language". While remaining centered on the importance of meaning, agency and history, the authors explore the latest developments in post-structuralism, neo-evolutionary theory and phenomenology.
dqThis book explores the diverse understandings of the archaeological record in both historical and contemporary perspective, while also serving as a guide to reassessing current views. Gavin Lucas argues that archaeological theory has become both too fragmented and disconnected from the particular nature of archaeological evidence. The book examines three ways of understanding the archaeological record - as historical sources, through formation theory, and as material culture - then reveals ways to connect these three domains through a reconsideration of archaeological entities and archaeological practice. Ultimately, Lucas calls for a rethinking of the nature of the archaeological record and the kind of history and narratives written from itdq--