On the object of archaeology

Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of …, 2010

The relationship between archaeologists and architects dealing in cultural heritage is not always idyllic. It can be complex, tense and sometimes, even hostile with each discipline being characterized by seemingly incompatible principles and criteria. The issue is part of a wide and heated debate focusing on the preservation and enhancement of archaeological heritage, using this term both for ancient buildings and areas subjected to the excavation activities of archaeologists. The recent increase in conferences, study days and publications demonstrates the attention that professionals are paying to this problem 1 . There seems to be a desire to find the meeting point where profound reflection can occur with respect to the meaning of the work of archaeologists and architects regarding the protection, enhancement and communication of historical places. The Intensive Programme 'Archaeology's places and contemporary uses' appears strictly related to this topic. Students belonging to faculties of Architecture and Archaeology coming from Italy, Spain and The United Kingdom have been involved in the creation of temporary shelters for archaeological sites in the Triveneto region. During the first days they were arranged into mixed groups, awakening them to the many differences imposed by university education, culture, outlook and modus operandi which they were expected to overcome in order to fulfil project requirements to a certain degree of quality. Specific areas of X Regio Augustea were selected to highlight the different needs and priorities required by each different site. The groups had to analyse aspects such as the history of the area, its relationship with the environment, protection from natural and human elements and, last but not least, its improvement. The result was a tense dialogue with no-holds barred: tension, friction, ideas merging and clashing in a practical demonstration of the importance of collaboration among differing professionals. As the archaeologists' tutor for this edition as well as the previous one I pondered at length the potential impact that an experiment like this could have on the growth of young archaeologists and designers who wanted to practice in the field of archaeological heritage. It constituted an occasion for a strict analysis of ethical and social responsibilities, strengths and weaknesses that characterize both of the disciplines. It wasn't easy. Let's face it: we think in dissimilar ways and view problems from dissimilar perspectives. Not even languages are the same. An example which is more significant than it may at first appear is the use of the term 'ruins' commonly used by architects as opposed to 'archaeological evidence' preferred by archaeologists. Clearly synonyms, but even in this case the students seemed to want to distinguish the same notion into different streams of thought. For students of Architecture the term 'ruins', rather than evoke Houel, Goethe or Maupassant's romantic vision, it emphasized their decay. Ruins reach the present through a series of passages that have eroded its original form thus representing fragments of an intangible past but creating a new entity at the same time: a sort of Chimera. Although mysterious and fascinating, ruins for them remained unrelated to contemporary reality, frozen in their timeless dimension. Creating a link between the old and the new was often the young architects' conceptual premise. They gave fundamental value to the redevelopment of the ruins, resurrected only through the creative impulse of their work.

European Journal of Archaeology, 2002

The Power of Reason, the Matter of Prehistory. Papers in Honour of Antonio Gilman Guillén, 2020

Díaz-Andreu, Margarita. 2020. "Towards Archaeological Theory: a history." In The Power of Reason, the Matter of Prehistory. Papers in Honour of Antonio Gilman Guillén, edited by Pedro Díaz-del-Río, Katina Lillios, & Inés Sastre, 41-53. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. ABSTRACT - This article provides a historical overview of the interest in archaeological methods and theory. Starting with nineteenth-century positivism, attention will be paid to a preoccupation with methods at the turn of the century and the appearance of a focus on theory in the 1930s. Moving from the UK to the US, the proposals made by the generations preceding the appearance of the New Archaeology paradigm in the 1940s and 1950s will be briefly described. The context that made possible the emergence of the New Archaeology is then explained and sorne ideas about when its might began to diminish will also be given. The ultimate aim of this article is to serve as a context for understanding the situation of theoretical archaeology at the time in which Antonio Gilman learned about the profession and practiced it. The article finishes with sorne thoughts on archaeological paradigms. CONTENT: Introduction | Positivism, friendships, and methods | From method to theory – from Europe to America | The vital, ingenious and imaginative generation of the late 1930s and 1940s | ‘Fast and furious’ changes: the 1950s | New Archaeology | A brief note about New Archaeology’s aftermath | Conclusion |

chapter in book in English, 2011

The paper considers classical archaeology as one of the first and oldest branches of archaeology practised in Europe taking into account the fact that interest in the relics of ancient civilisations is deeply inscribed in the self-identification of various peoples of Europe, in the grounds of their cultural identity. A wider problem concerning the 'living antiquity’ observed in the history of Europe is mentioned as well, and the causes of such vitality which is the reason why we spoke and most often still speak of the Greco-Roman foundations of European civilisation, albeit some argue that such an approach to Antiquity has already declined. It is a known fact that the splendour of Greece shone also on the ancient Roman world but it seems that it happened not only by way of appropriation of cultural achievements. Despite the difficult Roman-Greek relationship and exploitative Roman attitude to the Greek cultural heritage, to some extent cultural exchange took place on the basis of reciprocity. What's more, it is ultimately through the mediation of the Romans that the Hellenic culture flourished on various areas of their huge empire and was thus passed to subsequent periods of history. You could say that already in antiquity the first synthesis of complex achievements of the ancient culture took place on a great scale. It would then influence the medieval and Renaissance Europe, and from modern times each epoch would create its own model of antiquity and make further interpretations and syntheses of its sophisticated achievements. We are therefore entitled to state that the classic legacy is a common past of the whole Europe (thus classical archaeology is all European countries’ own archaeology), regardless of the extent to which the prehistory also creates the past, and to what extent it is formed by archaeologies of the regions and peoples, who in vast majority lived outside the classical world. Therefore, classical archaeology held an exceptionally privileged position for a long time (which is not the case nowadays, when all disciplines are treated equally and research assume a pluralistic approach), because, to some extent, similar to classical studies, it not only dealt with exploring the ancient past, but was to read the values developed in the ancient world and communicate them to next generations. Moreover, these values were drawn from the concept of 'Hellenism', developed already in the eighteenth century, continued in nineteenth, which idealised this unique, classic Greek past which was believed to have been the almost exclusive roots of 'Europeanism'. However, there are two factors that seem to be the main reasons of the independent development of classical archaeology in relation to other branches of archaeology and of its specific character. On the one hand, it is a huge amount of ancient works of art, as well as iconographic representations, temples and other buildings, which preserved to modern times. This legacy - or rather its magnitude and aesthetic qualities – contributed to focusing on the study of art and architecture in classical archaeology, and at the same time lack of interest and underestimation of all other relics of ancient material culture. On the other hand, a huge number of ancient written sources, including primarily the numerous inscriptions, set classical archaeology in a privileged position in relation to archaeology of prehistoric societies. Written sources, always regarded as more important than material remains, only 'illustrating' the former, were almost uncritically considered for a long time a 'real' insight into the ancient world. In the next part of the paper the problem of a very complex relations of classical archaeology and art history, is thoroughly discussed by the author. To conclude the author underlie the fact that archaeology, as well as other disciplines, attempts to preserve a character of a sovereign discipline with a precise research field. It is directed towards specific phenomena of the past cultural and social life, examined primarily through available material remains. However, by opening up more and more for collaboration with other disciplines, it also gets rid of its limitations and total dependence on one controlling humanistic discipline, which is important for classical archaeology regarding its strong connections with classical philology and art history. Nevertheless, she would say that this should not mean distancing itself and giving up this huge and great tradition - on the contrary, it should be rethought and included again in today's research. The authority of science lies in its achievements, jointly produced by scholars, namely the tradition, which is also subject to continuous development and change. The authority of a well-understood tradition does not stand in opposition to the freedom of undertaking new research. In case of archaeology, as one of the disciplines studying the past, we must realise that all questions about the past are asked from the position of the present, therefore, these are questions not only about the past itself, but also about contemporary people, thinking about the past from a particular cultural perspective. The way of thinking about the past is thus in this case a form of communicating the researchers’ own choices of values and thus an informed and open to others form of participating in a culture in which they are positioned. Ewa Bugaj reiterates the opinion stated already at the beginning of the text that our era, like the previous ones, creates its own model of antiquity and makes its own interpretations of its numerous achievements. We should hope that classical archaeology will show an inspiring role of antiquity in our times, as it functions with full knowledge that preserved texts, ideas, representations, as well as material culture of ancient Greece and Rome, for a very long time remained key for the Western world in the process of adaptation of the past in order to authenticate the present. Modern scholars, however, must take into consideration both the recognized use and abuse of the past. Hence, today's classical archaeology significantly broadens its field of research trying to describe the 'social life', the roles and importance of ancient material culture in the contemporary socio-cultural context. In so doing, it takes into account the reflections on the concept of the social agency of things, the strength of their impact, not only knowledge of them, recorded in the social memory. It also considers the influence of ancient artefacts on the senses of the recipient, with all their properties, such as visibility and tangibility, which gives them the ability of ongoing production and materialisation of time and place, of embodying the past.

1984

In this course, we will examine the successes and failures within the relationship between science and theory. Students will be introduced to some literature from the history of science and philosophy of science in an attempt to understand how scientific interpretations can be social constructions and how our perceptions about the validity and ‘truth’ of science were constructed. By questioning the origin of these paradigms, we can better comprehend our dependence on scientific analysis, as it informs our archaeological interpretations. We will critically evaluate topical approaches in leading journals, such as Archaeological Science, Field Archaeology, Archaeological Method and Theory and Social Archaeology, focusing on environmental approaches, survey methods and certain material assemblages, such as ceramics, plant, animals, and soils. What can these assemblages inform us about the people who produced and used them? Can high-tech analytical methods contribute to a deeper understanding of the past or just muddy the waters? Theoretically, we will follow Latour, Dupre and Foucault, to challenge the objectivity of ‘science’ and value of archaeological taxonomies, and question archaeological epistemologies as it relates to the construction of archaeological narratives. In the second part of this course, we will be dealing directly with archaeological assemblages and pushing the traditional interpretations further into the social realm. We will be working directly with the archaeological assemblages of the graduate students, specifically addressing the science and theory issues applicable to their research. The syllabus will be adjusted in the first week to accommodate the specific research problems presented by the graduate students.

Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, 1997

and Daniel Miller have in common? What are the relationships between McGuire's A MarxistArchaeology (1992) and Zen and the Art of Mo to rcycle Ma intenance (persig 1974)1 If you like the conjunction of paradigms from philosophy and psychology, reflections upon science and the humanities, refreshing reconsiderations of the processual and post-processual debates, and mental gymnastics, you will undoubtedly enjoy a majority of the essays found in this unique book. The goal of this volume is to reflect upon recent theoretical issues in archaeology. The commentators are, in the main, practicing archaeologists educated in the British tradition with substantial backgrounds in social anthropology, social theory, and philosophy. Therefore, some North American-trained anthropological anthropologists may find the scope of this interesting and introspective volume uncustomary and controver sial, perhaps even disjointed and diffused. The work goes beyond the "Old" and "New" Archaeology para digms, modernism. and post-modernism, objectivist and processual versus contextualist and post process ualist approaches, as well as other theoretical (and methodological) dichotomies. A majority of the authors are concerned about the major debates on archaeological theory that have taken place during the past two decades-for example, science and interpretation, and processualism and post-process ualism. Likewise, the papers concern the interr elationships of archaeology and contemporary social theory and draw from philosophy, the structure of science, gender studies, and ethics, among other humanities and social and physical sciences. In sum, the book engages an important question: Has contemporary theory in archaeology moved from constructive, "progressive" dialogues to a series of defensive, intractable positions or "pos tures?" Mackenzie also states that the idea that archaeologists " ... can disengage their personal, social, and political context from their work must also be construed as posturing" (p. 26). There are many fresh voices and divergent opinions presenting some invigorating ideas and challenging theoreticians of archaeological discourse.

The paper argues the case that, while archaeological practice involves the application of multiple methods and techniques, excavation is historically rooted as the core method of the discipline, conditioning all the others. Excavation is to archaeology as ethnography is to social anthropology. It is not only a principal ground of archaeological knowledge production. In a fundamental sense, excavation is constitutive of what it is to be an archaeologist.

M. Cruz Berrocal, L. García, A. Gilman (eds.) The Prehistory of Iberia. Debating Early Social Stratification and the State. Routledge, London: 29-49

This book contains the writings of a selection of Spanish archaeologies and archaeologists dealing with different temporal and geographical aspects of Iberian prehistory, all of them substantial and signifi cant topics in themselves. The contributions to this book were, however, also intended as displays of a way of making and understanding archaeology within a profoundly historical tradition such as the Spanish. This chapter attempts to frame this one characteristic of this book-that is, being about an archaeology rooted in history. Thus, it deals with the fundamental historicity of Spanish archaeology, its context and further development ( historicity being the quality of being historical, without any theoretical implication; historicism , on the other hand, is usually equated with culture-history, a particular theoretical framework).