Contemporary Issues in Archaeological Theory

Routledge, 2005

A fine summary of state-of-the-art thinking in archaeology in its time (2005), and still very relevant in 2020. I contributed a couple of entries. This invaluable resource provides an up-to-date and comprehensive survey of key ideas in archaeology and their impact on archaeological thinking and method. Featuring over fifty detailed entries by international experts, the book offers definitions of key terms, explaining their origin and development. Entries also feature guides to further reading and extensive cross-referencing. Subjects covered include: • Thinking about landscape • Cultural evolution • Social archaeology • Gender archaeology • Experimental archaeology • Archaeology of cult and religion • Concepts of time • The Antiquity of Man • Feminist archaeology • Multiregional evolution Archaeology: The Key Concepts is the ideal reference guide for students, teachers and anyone with an interest in archaeology.

Archaeological Dialogues, 2018

The paper ponders on the object of archaeology, called here 'the archaeological.' It argues that the existence of such an object is a necessary premise of the field and that ultimately it is on this object that the validity of all claims and arguments must rest. The paper suggests that the archaeological be conceived as a cultural phenomenon that consists in being disengaged from the social, an understanding that positions archaeology as a counterpart to the social sciences and the humanities, rather than a member in the same milieu. The first part of the paper focuses on the position of the archaeological with reference to the concepts of 'Nature' and 'Culture' that eventually leads us to a confrontation of archaeological statics with the dynamics of the world. Efforts to justify and understand archaeological statics, consequently, leads to the recognition of a constitutive distinction between buried and non-buried conditions, upon which the differentiation of the archaeological from the social is established.

A rchaeologists are relevant social agents, and they should aim to demonstrably present our work as interesting and useful. We have the social responsibility to make knowledge available for the public engage with our audience, and to reach people outside the discipline. The practical side of archaeology can be one potential scenario. As Lilla Vonk notes, the possibility of interacting and experiencing the past through and engagement with heritage generates fascination and activates imagination, positively impacting the wellbeing of dementia and arguably other mental health patients. Our discipline can provide an invaluable source of motivation for continuing healthcare in a more enjoyable and meaningful way. Another possibility for public engagement is through the presentation of both research and interpretation. Antonio Sánchez, in his study of Roman viae in Hispania, convincingly argues that archaeology is not limited to excavation and recording. The public dimension of heritage ownership demands that it should be known and respected by everyone, and museums can become a platform for this shared exploration of the significance of archaeological remains. The conservation and curation of museum pieces thus become a paramount dimension of archaeological practice due to their relevance in public presentation and heritage display as embodied materiality of historical memory. Wael Gabo Elgat reports the scientific methodology behind the treatment of Khedive Ismail's antique gun at the NMM-Saladin Citadel in Egypt after suffering a certain degree of decay.

What is the nature and disciplinary status of archaeology? Is it a natural science, a social science, or one of the humanities? Or, is it a hybrid field with a complex and distinctive engagement with all three? What questions do archaeologists ask and what methods have they developed to answer them? Is there a unified theory of archaeology, or are there multiple theories appropriate for different research interests? If the latter is the case, how are these theories to be resolved when they come into conflict? How is archaeology practiced in the contemporary moment? And, how should it be? What does archaeology offer us as four-field anthropologists? This graduate seminar is an introduction to the method and theory of archaeological anthropology and to contemporary issues facing its practitioners. It emphasizes the varied ways inferences are made about past and present human behavior from material culture. It reviews the fundamental epistemologies of explanation and understanding, as well as the ways that archaeology is related to the other subdisciplines of anthropology and additional fields in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. It engages critically but sympathetically with the history of the discipline, investigates how archaeologists engage with contemporary anthropological debates and broader social issues, and discusses complex issues facing practicing archaeologists today. The four core seminars, of which this class is one, are the basis for comprehensive written exams taken at the end of the first year of graduate study in the Department of Anthropology. A list of study questions based on the topics covered in this course will be provided at the end of the seminar for use in exam preparation.

2023

The first edition of the Other Perspectives in Archaeology (OPA) conference, which will take place in the Faculty of Geography and History of the University of Barcelona the 29th, 30th and 31st March 2023. This new archeology congress is organized collectively by a number of young researchers from different research groups of the Department of History and Archeology of the University of Barcelona. The study of those forgotten by History is not a recent one, but, under the auspices of favourable theoretical currents, Archaeology has achieved a more sensitive approach towards these subjects. Under the broad theme “Erased from the past”, we aim to give much needed visibility to forgotten people and subjects, which have been traditionally marginalized. The event welcomes proposals on any archaeological subject including, but not limited to: - Invisibilized social approaches in Archaeology (Gender and Feminist studies, Childhood studies, Elderly people studies, ----- Disabilities studies, Subaltern studies, etc.) - Archaeology of social, ethnic, cultural and religious minorities. - Geographically / physically isolated human communities. - Economic activities deemed “secondary” or “marginal” by ancient / modern scholars.

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.

1984

Canadian Journal of Archaeology

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.