Search

In lieu of an abstract:On December 12, 1922, General Charpy, commander of the French occupying forces in Istanbul,replied to Halil Bey (1861–1937), head of the Ottoman Imperial Museum, who hadrecently inquired about French excavations in the city:[F]ar from having destroyed and sacked [the city] during its stay here, the FrenchOccupational Corps made an effort to contribute to the beautification of your admirablecity and not only responded to the charitable needs of your refugees, but also usedthe means which it had at its disposal for excavations, for the supplementation of thepatrimony of art, which constitutes the fame of your capital.1

The 1950s were a pivotal era in Polynesian archaeology, with the beginnings of stratigraphic excavations and application of radiocarbon dating. Robert Carl Suggs played a key role with his seminal work on Nuku Hiva in the Marquesas Islands. Suggs’s use of artefact seriation, and his focus on architecture along with portable artefacts, were key methodological contributions. Unlike other contemporaries, Suggs brought a holistic anthropological perspective to his interpretations of culture change. Even though the chronology he proposed for Marquesan prehistory has been revised, his sequence of cultural periods remains relevant to current discussions of the Polynesian past.

The article is dedicated to an exploration of archaeological theory issues at the Institute of archaeology AS UkrSSR in the 1960s. This period is one of the worst studied in the history of Soviet archaeology. But it was the time when in the USSR archaeological researches reached the summit, quantitative methods and methods of natural sciences were applied and interest in theoretical issues had grown in archaeology. Now there are a lot of publications dedicated to theoretical discussions between archaeologists from Leningrad but the same researches about Kyiv scholars are still unknown. The archaeological theory includes both generalizations made on the basis of archaeological sources and archaeological methodology. The article emphasizes the history of methodology studies at the IA AS UkrSSR during the mentioned period. The research is based on evidence from the annual reports on a work of the Institute from the Scientific archive of the Institute of Archaeology NASU. According to the documents the theory was mentioned in the early 1950s because of publication of new J. V. Stalin’s works. However, that time as well as at the beginning of the next decade, when works started under three volumes of “The Archaeology of the UkrSSR”, it was written that attention to theoretical issues was focused at the Institute, not enough. At the IA AS UkrSSR discussions on archaeological methodology started in the 1960s when papers on theoretical issues, applying cybernetic, methods of natural sciences and statistical methods into archaeology were regularly presented at sessions of the Academic council. Yu. N. Zakharuk was the most active employee of the Institute who worked in this field. In addition to presentation of papers at conferences, and sessions of the Academic council and publications, he was an executor of the scheduled work ‘Methodological and methodic issues of archaeological science’ in 1968–1970. Also it was planed to publish a book on theoretical issues. In other words, the IA AS UkrSSR was the first archaeological establishment in the USSR where the work on archaeological methodology was scheduled. According to circumstances this work had not been completely finished but the Ukrainian scholar was invited to hold the position of deputy director at the Institute of Archaeology AS USSR in Moscow. Despite a skeptical attitude to the theory among most Soviet archaeologists Yu. N. Zakharuk was able to intensify the work on theoretical issues in Soviet archaeology. A separate theoretical session, which was organized by him at the Plenum of the IA AS USSR in Moscow in 1972, might be considered as an initialization of theoretical archaeology as a new sub-discipline in the USSR.

En un texto previo, abordamos las temporadas arqueológicas I, II y III que el Departamento de Monumentos Prehispánicos del INAH implementó desde el inicio de 1960 hasta septiembre de 1962 en las ruinas de la antigua urbe teotihuacana y que fueron el antecedente de las Temporadas IV y V del denominado “Proyecto Teotihuacán”, ejecutadas entre septiembre de 1962 y septiembre de 1964. El objetivo de este artículo es exponer la información inédita del “Proyecto Teotihuacán” que quedó consignada en los informes técnicos resguardados en el INAH, así como en los escasos textos que fueron publicados para sacar a la luz las fuentes documentales que aportan información directa de los protagonistas del proyecto. Toda esta documentación dará tanto a los investigadores como al público en general, la oportunidad de valorar –de una manera mejor informada– las acciones y las aportaciones que se hicieron durante uno de los proyectos más emblemáticos de la historia de la arqueología mexicana y latinoamericana. Es sólo de esta manera que se podrán comprender los retos que enfrentaron los investigadores, trabajadores, servidores públicos y las instituciones gubernamentales involucradas en llevar a cabo esas exploraciones y reconstrucciones arqueológicas a gran escala. Por primera vez –a más de medio siglo después del término de este megaproyecto– este artículo presenta una visión de conjunto, sistemática y completa, de la información producida por dicho proyecto. Es de máxima importancia recuperar esta memoria arqueológica porque agrega una mejor comprensión de las narrativas que fueron construidas por los especialistas en relación con el desarrollo de la sociedad prehispánica de Teotihuacan, y sobre la historia de la arqueología en esta antigua metrópoli.

Like any science, archaeology relies on trust between actors involved in the production of knowledge. In the early history of archaeology, this epistemic trust was complicated by histories of Orientalism in the Middle East and colonialism more broadly. The racial and power dynamics underpinning 19th- and early 20th-century archaeology precluded the possibility of interpersonal moral trust between foreign archaeologists and locally hired labourers. In light of this, archaeologists created systems of reward, punishment, and surveillance to ensure the honest behaviour of site workers. They thus invented a set of structural conditions that produced sufficient epistemic trust for archaeological research to proceed—a system that continues to shape archaeology to the present day.

To date, the evolution of archaeological knowledge production and theory has been discussed and analyzed using qualitative methods by reading vast amounts of archaeological texts in search of specific discourses or framings of the past. In this paper, we present text mining methodologies from digital humanities that can be applied to large corpora of archaeological texts to trace and evaluate changing knowledge practices. Such a big data approach is imperative. Due to the rapid increase of archaeological publications, qualitative research into the intellectual history of archaeology has become complicated and highly selective. The big data methods presented in this study were tested on a large corpus (4,811 texts totaling over 51 million words) of different types of archaeological texts from the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. The different text mining tools were successful in identifying theoretical trends. Our tools were also successful in charting the decrease in quality due to changed organizational circumstances (developer-led archaeology). Furthermore, we could also map changing banal nationalist framings of the past.

The purpose of the article is to highlight the process of establishing of the laboratory of natural science methods at the Institute of archaeology AS of the UkrSSR in the 1960s basing on archival sources from the Scientific archive of the Institute of archaeology NAS of Ukraine. The Research Methodology. Both general research methods and special methods of humanitarian and historical researches as the historiographic analysis, source critique and problem chronological method were applied by the author. The scientific novelty of the article consists in the fact that there are no publications on this topic and an initial period of the laboratory activity of natural science methods of the IA AS of the UkrSSR is unexplored. The Conclusions. In contrast to central archaeological research establishments of the USSR where forming of research infrastructure for applying methods of natural science in archaeology started in the 1950s, in Kyiv at the IA AS of UkrSSR this process began only in the middle of the 1960s despite an announce of the plans in 1956. Although the administrations of AS of the UkrSSR and the Institute supported the work in this field, but the laboratory of spectral analysis could not get things going for more than five years. The main technical equipment was bought by the IA AS of the UkrSSR as far back as in 1964 but because of the lack of free rooms, the need for qualified staff and bureaucratic delays of that period, which did not make it possible to solve problems rapidly, which appeared during the installation of new devices, researches did not start until the end of the decade. This situation changed only in the middle of the 1970s when the Institute of archaeology AS of the UkrSSR moved to a new building. But it was much better with applying geophysical methods in the survey of archaeological sites. Owing to V. P. Dudkin’s activity, who tested new equipment in the second half of the 1960s, a magnetic survey of the Trypillian settlement Maidanetske was completed in the first half of the next decade. In some period of time, despite the initial delay, the IA AS of the UkrSSR made progress in the use of research methods of natural science in archaeology. Keywords: history of archaeology, the Soviet archaeology, methods of natural science in archaeology, laboratory of natural science methods, Institute of archaeology AS of the UkrSSR.

Авторами статьи представлены результаты изучения истории изучения курганов. Территория современной Белгородской области до 1954 г. входила в состав Воронежской и Курской губерний /областей. В этот период изучение древностей происходит в русле развития археологии указанных регионов. С конца 1950-ых гг. в области работают крупные академические археологические экспедиции, начинает формироваться актуальный банк данных о курганных памятниках региона. В 2000-х гг. проводится сплошное обследование области на предмет наличия курганов силами местных экспедиций. Библиографические ссылки Археологические исследования в РСФСР 1934-1936 гг. Краткие отчеты и сведения / Под ред. В. В. Гольмстен; Ин-т истории материальной культуры им. Н. Я. Марра. М.; Ленинград: Изд-во Акад. наук СССР, 1941 (Ленинград). 328 с. Археологические памятники Белгородской области / Отв. ред. А.Г. Дьяченко Вып. 1. Белгород: Управление культуры администрации Белгородской области, 1992. С. I-VIII, 1-53, IХ-XV. Археологические памятники Белгородской области / Отв. ред. А.Г. Дьяченко А.Г. Вып. 2. Белгород: Управление культуры администрации Белгородской области, 1993. С. I-VI, 1-25, VII-XIII. Археологические памятники Белгородской области / Отв. ред. А.Г. Дьяченко А.Г. Вып. 3. Белгород: Управление культуры администрации Белгородской области, 1995. 32 с. Божко А.А., Остапенко А.А, Сидоренко Т.Е. Охранные работы в Белгородской области в 2011–2013 гг. // Археологические открытия 2010–2013 годов. / Отв. ред. Н. В. Лопатин М.: Институт археологии РАН, 2015. С. 143−145. Гуляев В.И. На восточных рубежах Скифии (древности донских скифов). М.: ИА РАН, 2010. 344 с. Дьяченко А.Г. Памятники раннего железного века и эпохи средневековья в лесостепном междуречье Ворсклы и Дона // Русский сборник. Вып. 8. Т. 1. / Отв. ред. Е.А. Шинаков. Брянск: РИО БГУ, 2016. С. 54−73. Ефимов К.Ю. Охранные раскопки памятника археологии «Курганный могильник 1 у с. Новоуколово» в Красненском районе. 2007 / Архив управления государственной охраны объектов культурного наследия Белгородской области Захарова Е.Ю. К вопросу об археологических занятиях Сергея Федоровича Платонова (раскопки 1909 г. в Валуйках) // Научные ведомости Белгородского государственного университета. Серия История. Политология. Экономика. 2014. № 1 (172). Вып. 29. С. 136–140. Захарова Е.Ю. П.Д. Либеров и развитие археологии Среднего Дона // Вестник ВГУ. Серия: история, политология, социология. 2008. № 2. С. 62–70. Златоверховников Н.И. Памятники старины и нового времени и другие достопримечательности Курской губернии. Курск: Кур. губ. стат. ком.,1902. 98 с. Ивашов М.В., Земцов, Г.Л., Свиридов А.А. Охранные археологические исследования кургана у с. Ближняя Игуменка в Белгородской области // Археологические памятники Восточной Европы. Вып. 14. /Отв. ред. И.В. Федюнин Воронеж: Воронежский госпедуниверситет, 2011. С. 127–134. Карагодин М.И. Новые находки бронзового века в Шелаево // СА. 1977. № 2. С. 229–232. Кашкин А.В. 10 лет работы Центрально-Черноземного отряда// КСИА. №. 210. / Отв. ред. И.Т. Кругликова. М.: Наука, 1993. С. 69–76. Килейников В.В. Отчет к Открытому листу № 313 о проведении археологических разведок по рекам Тихая Сосна и Оскол в Воронежской и Белгородской областях в 1980 году / Архив ИА РАН, Р-1, № 8138. Кобылин А.Н. Зеленый курган // Труды Курской ГУАК. Вып. 1. Курск, 1911. С. 25–27. Ковалевский В.Н., Сурков А.В. Охранные раскопки кургана 2 у с. Таврово в Белгородской области // Археологические памятники Восточной Европы. Вып. 14. /Отв. ред. И.В. Федюнин Воронеж: Воронежский госпедуниверситет, 2011. С. 145–148. Кудряшов А.Г., Мельников Е.Н. Раскопки кургана эпохи поздней бронзы у с. Гороженное Корочанского района Белгородской области // Археология восточноевропейской лесостепи. Сборник материалов международной научно-практической конференции, посвященной 80-летию со дня рождения А.Г. Николаенко (Белгород, 14-16 декабря 2017 года). / Отв. ред. В.А.Сарапулкин. Белгород: НИУ «БелгГУ», 2018. С. 141–150. Макаренко Н.Е. Отчет об археологических исследованиях в Харьковской и Воронежской губ. в 1905 г. // Известия ИАК. Вып. 19. СПб., 1906. С. 117−156. Материалы для истории Воронежской и соседних губерний. Воронежские акты. Т. 1. Воронеж: Воронеж. губ. стат. ком., 1887. 420 с. Медведев А.П. Отчет о раскопках курганной группы Владимировка -1 в Старооскольском районе Белгородской области в 2008 г. Воронеж: 2009 / Архив Управления государственной охраны объектов культурного наследия Белгородской области. Митрофанов В.В. Археологические раскопки в Валуйках в 1909 году // Клио. 2015. № 6 (102). С. 113−121. Отношение члена Московского Археологического Общества Магистранта Дмитрия Самоквасова на имя преосвященного Сергия Епископа Курского // Курские епархиальные ведомости. 1872. № 17. С. 1125−1128. Петренко Е.Н. Исследования курганов энеолита-бронзы в бассейне р. Оскол // Археологические исследования в Центральном Черноземье в 12 пятилетке. Белгород. 1990. С. 63–65. Попова Т.В. Племена катакомбной культуры. М.: Госкультпросветиздат, 1955. 180 с. Постановление Губернатора Белгородской области от 13.12.2005 г. № 194 «Об охране курганных памятников Белгородской области» // СПС Гарант. URL: https://base.garant.ru/26308668 (Дата обращения 20.05.2020). Постановление губернатора Белгородской области от 27.09.2007 г. № 120 «О сохранности скифских захоронений Белгородской области» // СПС Гарант. URL: https://base.garant.ru/26313862 (Дата обращения 20.05.2020). Пряхин А.Д. Отчет археологической экспедиции Воронежского госуниверситета по обследованию памятников эпохи бронзы в 1968 г. / Архив ИА РАН. р-1. № 3674. Пузикова А.И. Погребальный инвентарь курганных могильников скифского времени Среднего Подонья. М.: ИА РАН, 2017. 160 с. Сайт управления государственной охраны объектов культурного наследия Белгородской области URL: http://okn31.ru/deyatelnost/gosudarstvennyj-uchet/ (Дата обращения 20.05.2020). Сведения об археологических исследованиях, памятниках древности, кладах и находках // ИАК. Прибавление к вып. 34. СПб., 1910. С. 75–145. Сосновский К.П. Городища и курганы в бассейне верхнего течения реки Псла в пределах Обоянского уезда Курской губернии // Труды Курской ГУАК. Вып. 1. Курск, 1911. С. 308–320. Софронов А. Памятники древности, вблизи села Староселья Грайворонского уезда // Курские епархиальные ведомости. 1873. № 3. С. 120−128. Спицын А.А. Обозрение некоторых губерний и областей России в археологическом отношении. III. Воронежская губерния // Записки Императорского Русского Археологического Общества. Т. VIII, Вып. 1–2. СПб.: Типография И.Н. Скороходова, 1896. С. 132−140. Спицын А.А. Обозрение Курской губ. в археологическом отношении //Курский сборник. Вып. I. Курск: Типография Губернскаго Правления, 1901. С. 97−100. Спицын А.А. Сведения 1873 г. о городищах и курганах. Предисловие // Известия ИАК. Вып. 5. Спб., 1903. С. 1–4.

Japanese diaspora archaeology originated in the late 1960s but reports and publications did not appear until the 1980s. Early studies often included Japanese artifacts or sites within larger surveys, but by the 1990s and 2000s were the focus of targeted research. Most research has been undertaken in western North American and the Pacific Islands. Pre-War farms and work camps and World War II battlefields and incarceration centers emerged as primary topics of study, with the incarceration centers dominating the literature today. Research themes are diverse but emphasize material consumption, concepts of place, and patterns of cultural persistence and change.

Research in the history of archaeology, its connections with political authority and its role in shaping identities and cultural memory has been blossoming for more than two decades now; yet the possible topics and angles for further research are far from being exhausted. The author of this monograph is not new to this kind of studies, as he is the author, among other publications, of Ancient Marbles to American Shores. Classical Archaeology in the United States (1998) and of In Pursuit of An...

Despite the previous overview studies on Polish and East German archaeology and historiography after 1945, further analyses of the relationship between science and politics as well as of the inner-disciplinary processes and discourses in the “Cold War” period are still needed. This applies in particular to the research field of “Slavic archaeology”, the archaeological and historiographical research on the “Slavs” in prehistorical and early medieval times. With regard to recent demands for an extended and more dynamic understanding of science and new methodological approaches in the history of science (and of archaeology as well), this paper focuses on two leading figures of “Slavic archaeology”, Witold Hensel (PPR) and Joachim Herrmann (GDR), as case studies to provide more insights into this discipline. Analysing the course of Hensel’s and Herrmann’s careers and of their way to the “Slavs” as one of their main research interests, their administrative functions as institutional directors and the central narratives of their publications on the early “Slavs”, provides the opportunity to profoundly dissect the interrelations between scholarly work, politics, and ideology in this field of research. The comparative approach also makes it possible to identify parallel tendencies in Eastern German and Polish “Slavic archaeology” as well as specific national conditions and developments. On the example of Hensel and Herrmann, it becomes clear that the implemented biographical-comparative perspective is fruitful and can be used for further research in the history of science.

Catalhoyuk remains one of the most intensively and meticulously excavated prehistoric sites in the history of archaeology. Two large excavation campaigns, carried out in the years 1961–1965 and 199...

Prior to the excavations of Sue Bulmer in the late 1950s, the archaeological modelling of New Guinea’s past was hindered by a lack of time depth. Archaeological models of change involving the movement of peoples were the norm, and they were based on datasets including material culture, language, and physical attributes of people. This article charts early attempts of archaeology in exploring Papua New Guinea’s past using excavation and material culture. It concludes by noting that despite past drawbacks in interpreting these early excavations and analyses, these legacy collections can be revisited using modern scientific techniques in providing new directions in understanding the past.

Methodological innovations have a special status in disciplinary histories, because they can be widely adopted and anonymised. In the 1950s, this occurred to Georges Laplace's innovative use of 3-dimensional metric Cartesian coordinate system to record the positions of archaeological objects. This paper proposes a conceptual and social history of this process, with a focus on its spatial context, the Pyrenean region (Spain, Basque Country, and France). Main results of this research based on archives, publications, and bibliometric data, include: 1) a critical discussion of the notions concerning authorship of such methodological innovations; 2) a presentation of the lesser-known aspects of Laplace’s method, showing its contribution to the abstraction and formalisation of archaeological observations and data recording; and 3) the identification of an international Pyrenean intellectual lineage of innovation regarding stratigraphy and excavation methods, from the late 19th century to the early 21th century. Les innovations méthodologiques, pouvant être largement adoptées et anonymisées, possèdent un statut particulier dans les historiographies disciplinaires. Ce fut le cas du système de coordonnées Cartésiens métriques employé dès les années 1950 par Georges Laplace pour enregistrer la position des objets archéologiques. Fondé sur ce cas, et accordant une attention particulière à son contexte spatial - l’espace international pyrénéen (Espagne, Pays Basque, France) - cet article propose une histoire conceptuelle et sociale de ce processus. Les résultats de cette recherche, basée sur les publications, des archives, et des données bibliométriques, comprennent : 1) une approche critique de l’attribution d’autorité dans le cas des innovations méthodologiques ; 2) l’analyse d’aspects plus méconnus de la méthode Laplace, et leur contribution au processus d’abstraction et de formalisation des observations et de l’enregistrement des données en archéologie ; 3) la mise en évidence, de la fin du XIXe siècle au début du XXIe siècle, d’un lignage pyrénéen international d’innovation. Las innovaciones metodológicas, que pueden ser ampliamente adoptadas y anonimizadas, tienen un estatus especial en las historiografías disciplinarias. Así, desde los años 1950, Georges Laplace ha utilizado un sistema de coordenadas métricas cartesianas para registrar la posición de los objetos arqueológicos. A partir de este caso, y prestando especial atención a su contexto espacial - el espacio pirenaico internacional (España, País Vasco, Francia) -, este artículo propone una historia conceptual y social de este proceso. Los resultados de esta investigación, basada en publicaciones, archivos y datos bibliométricos, incluyen: 1) un enfoque crítico del reconocimiento de la autoría en el caso de las innovaciones metodológicas; 2) el análisis de los aspectos menos conocidos del método Laplace, y su contribución al proceso de abstracción y formalización tanto de las observaciones como del registrode datos arqueologícos; 3) la identificación, desde finales del siglo XIX hasta principios del siglo XXI, de un linaje pirenaico internacional de innovación.

Archaeological concepts of prehistory and the Stone Age are rooted in nineteenth-century scientific discoveries, which extended the human past much further back in time than was previously thought. Without this deep past, the disciplines of archaeology and history would not be what they are today. However, when the division of prehistory into the ages of stone, bronze, and iron was introduced in 1836, it was already an old idea. Stone Age artefacts and the initial phase of human history were discussed in the eighteenth-century academic world, even though the periodisation of history was constructed differently. In the philosophy of the Enlightenment several ideas surfaced which were essential to the formation of archaeology as a scientific practice, and which still affect the way the prehistoric past is imagined. This article examines the concept of a prehistoric, furthest past in Finnish scientific texts, within the framework of eighteenth-century Swedish traditions of science and historiography. How did the scholars in the Academy of Turku view Stone Age artefacts that had a multi-faceted nature in the antiquarian tradition? In what way did their visions of the earliest phase of the Nordic past set up later nationalistic narratives about prehistory?

The earliest archaeological spindle graph was published in 1883 by natural historian and avocational archaeologist Charles C. Abbott. Evidence that he obtained the idea from paleontology, which first published spindle graphs in the 1830s and 1840s, is circumstantial at best, and differences in graph styles weigh against such borrowing. Several spindle graphs published in the 1890s and early 1900s by archaeologist William Henry Holmes either depict his views on inevitable progressive evolution—a theory rapidly falling from anthropological favor—or were so speculative as to likely have had little influence on the discipline. During the first couple decades of the twentieth century, physicist/geographer/anthropologist Franz Boas (often referred to as the father of anthropology) published numerous line graphs of quantitative data. He influenced archaeologists Leslie Spier and Manual Gamio who used line graphs to display temporally varying frequencies of artifacts. About the same time, the wife and husband team of Madeleine Kidder and Alfred V. Kidder published several line graphs of relative frequencies of pottery types against stratigraphic provenience, seemingly largely as a result of Madeleine’s influence because Alfred never again published such a graph and instead favored phyletic seriation graphs of a type reminiscent of Sir William Flinders Petrie’s sequence dating graphs from the turn of the century.

About antiquities is a comparative, cross-cultural study regarding the history of archaeology, centred in the last years of the Ottoman Empire, focused on questions such as: who owns antiquity and what are the good and bad uses of antiquities. It surely is a worthy lecture, not only because the author of the book, Zeynep Celik, is probably one of the scholars who better knows the topic, but also because, currently, the heritage’s destructions by DAESH have increased the importance of the ques...

When archaeologists Rhys Jones, Jim Allen and others undertook archaeological investigations in the newly proclaimed World Heritage Area in southwest Tasmania following the Franklin River Dam campa...

This paper presents the potential for folklore to enrich studies of, and participation in, public archaeology. Referring to the varied approaches to public archaeology in the United Kingdom, and fo...

In histories of world archaeology to date the Pacific is all but missing. There has been some investigation into the history of archaeology in Australia and New Zealand, and other piecemeal...