CULTURE-HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

Akulov A, Nonno T. 2023. Against the concept of archaeological culture. Cultural Anthropology & Ethnosemiotics, Vol. 9, N 3; pp.: 12 - 14

The use of the concept of archaeological culture causes tangles and absurdity. Archaeologists often try to ascribe certain ethnic content to archaeological cultures, or simply replace the discourse about ancient ethnic groups with a discourse about archaeological cultures. Also, different archaeological cultures are frequently singled out within the material culture created by the same ethnicity. And among archaeologists there is a prerequisite to explain any change of archaeological cultures by the change of population. It is better not to use the concept of archaeological culture at all, the concept of technocomplex should be used instead. The concept of technocomplex is much more accurate than the concept of archaeological culture, since the concept of technocomplex designates a recurring assemblage of artifacts from a specific region and a specific time as a phenomenon of material culture only, and leaves aside the question of its ethnic content.

2014

Archaeology is a vast field of study, though its vastness has not been a constant. Even though it is a fairly recent field, its development has been an ongoing process for centuries. There are many archaeologists, that proposed various archaeological terms that have been developed over time, which have, in turn contributed to the development of archaeology as a scientific discipline. Using three main theoretical frameworks of the antiquity of man, the concept of evolution and the three age system as proposed by Thomsen, this essay will explore the development of archaeology as a field of study, a scientific discipline and a method of understanding the past. The focus of this essay is not to highlight the chronological development of the field, but to understand the impact and the contributions of these frameworks to the realm of archaeology by also exploring research methods, classification methods, societal structure and the impact of new discoveries in archaeology.

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 |

1984

2 Tell your children not to hear my words What they mean, what they say.

2017

This introduction to a set of papers on innovations in ancient societies discusses an overview of crucial issues raised in the collected contributions. It is evident that the esteem for innovations in different societies was highly uneven. Most of the contributions collected here argue that in non-modern circumstances, innovations had to be inserted into existing cultural traditions with utmost care to be successful.

This paper offers a survey of the rapid changes observed in the field of archaeological theory in the last twenty years or so; in the midst of cataclysmic changes in the way scholars, and the public at large, attempt to comprehend the past, archaeologists have learnt to trust significantly less their valuable raw data and ‘facts’, in favour of more nuanced accounts allowing for the complexity of the phenomena they study. More to the point, they slowly realise that, as historians, they are internal to the problems under their scrutiny.

2014

Archaeology is not merely the study of antiquity through the systematic discovery, colleting and documenting of ancient things. It is also the appreciation and interpretation of things and their agency which shed light on the character and dynamics of past (and present) societies.

This introduction to a set of papers on innovations in ancient societies discusses an overview of crucial issues raised in the collected contributions. It is evident that the esteem for innovations in different societies was highly uneven. Most of the contributions collected here argue that in non-modern circumstances, innovations had to be inserted into existing cultural traditions with utmost care to be successful.