Search

The premise of Ottoman indifference to “antiquities” was already widely assumed by early modern travelers and archaeologists and continues to inform contemporary discussion of cultural patrimony in post-Ottoman nations. However, it is contradicted by numerous accounts of local interpretations of ancient monuments and local resistance to the efforts of outsiders to remove antiquities. Local interpretations of monuments constituted an alternative discourse that cohered around a set of recurring concerns, while also developing over time. The potential of these local interpretations to expand the discourse of academic archaeology has been obscured by their classification as elements of a timeless folklore, which is understood to speak to the customs and manners of the interpreters, not to the objects of interpretation.

Archaeological research projects employ a diverse body of recording strategies to preserve detailed information about material evidence of the past. One of the most persisting and common forms of recording is the archaeological diary. Despite having undergone transformations in form and function over the history of archaeology as a discipline, diaries are most often integrated into contemporary excavations in order to enhance reflexivity and to provide a greater context for understanding both the processes and products of these research endeavors. I argue that diaries do succeed in promoting reflexive archaeological practice, though not because of the greater contextual information they capture. Instead, the degree to which diaries repeat information recorded by other media embodies their integral role in reflexive archaeological epistemology. By comparing diary entries from Catalhoyuk, Turkey to the pro forma produced at this site, I demonstrate that archaeological diaries' power derives from the...

This article traces the development of archaeological inquiry in the former Soviet Republic of Armenia, from its antiquarian roots in the 19th century, through the Soviet era, and into modern times. The resurgence of western attention in the region since the end of the Cold War has been driven by collaborative research projects from the United States, Germany, Austria, France, Italy, England, Russia, and Canada, that employ a variety of methods to understand the archaeological heritage of Armenia. Research problems are related to the Palaeolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages, as well as to the Urartian, Achaemenid, and Hellenistic periods.For those unfamiliar with Armenia, this article is meant as a primer to the history of the discipline as it has been practiced in the region. For those already engaged in archaeology there, it is our hope that this discussion will lend an added historical dimension to ongoing field projects.

where change is gradual and continuous, moving from relatively simple to more complex. In fact, recent research demonstrates that this was not the case. A new discussion on possible cannibalism among the Anasazi also is treated in descriptive terms. An anthropological perspective, particularly important when discussing such a sensitive topic, is largely missing. Chapter 9 examines the post-archaic of eastern Colorado, beginning with a discussion of Plains Woodland archaeology. This is followed by a summary of Upper Republican sites of northeastern Colorado and the Apishapa Phase in the southeastern corner of the state. The chapter concludes with a brief description of the Upper Purgatoire Complex and sites stone-circle sites. Chapter 10 completes the culture history with a discussion of the historic tribes found in Colorado: Apaches, Navajos, Utes, Comanches, Arapahos, and Cheyennes. The book closes with a brief summary (chapter 11) and a discussion of Colorado archaeology as it is practiced today (chapter 12). A final chapter presents short biographies of over 40 archaeologists who have been instrumental in reconstructing Colorado's past. These engaging portraits are a substantial contribution to the book, helping to flesh out the history of archaeology in the state. The book closes with appendixes on terminology and Colorado archaeological agencies and institutions, a glossary, and a substantial bibliography. Cassells has done a great deal for Colorado archaeology, and this revised text is another important contribution.

Ten scholars with specialities ranging from ethno-history to remote sensing and lithic analysis to bio-archaeology chronicle the changes in the way prehistory in the South-east has been studied since the 19th century. Each brings to the task the particular perspective provided by his or her own subdiscipline. The result is a multifaceted overview of the history of archaeology in a region that has played an important but variable role in the overall development of North American archaeology. Some of the specialities discussed in this book were traditionally relegated to appendices or ignored completely in site reports that are more than 20 years old. Today, most are part of the bodies of the reports but this integration has been hard won. Others have been, and will continue to be, of central concern to archaeologists. Whatever the case, each chapter details the way in which changes in method can be related to changes in theory by reviewing major landmarks in the literature. As a consequence, the reader can compare the development of each of the subdisciplines, which is not always uniform. Also, each chapter provides access to a different aspect of the rich literature on south-eastern prehistory. The book should be valuable to south-eastern archaeologists. Because many of the major figures in American archaeology have worked in the south-east, the book also provides important insights for archaeologists everywhere. The general reader should find the book of interest because the development of Southeastern archaeology reflects trends in the development of social science as a whole.