Search

This article analyses Finnish maritime archaeology through a compiled bibliography of 621 scientific and popular works published between 1942–2020. General trends and turning points in the history of the discipline are identified and discussed vis-a-vis temporal and topical foci discerned in the publications. Special attention is drawn to the concentration in Finnish research on shipwrecks from the historical period, and the low international visibility of scientific production is problematised. While large-scale projects have been carried out in Finnish maritime archaeology, knowledge production within the authorised heritage discourse in particular has aimed to fulfil the needs of local and national rather than international audiences. Our compiled bibliography, which is hereby made available to the wider research community, has potential to become a valuable tool for identifying and developing future research areas.

Copyright of Archaeologies is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article provides an account of the history, present state, and possible future directions of Finnish maritime archaeology in order to elucidate certain aspects characteristic of the field. In the Finnish context, academia and the heritage sector are historically interconnected, and professionals have successfully assumed responsibilities in both. Research opportunities, however, have been more numerous at the Finnish Heritage Agency (FHA) than in academia, whereas the focus has been on well-preserved wrecks mainly from seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This can be explained by the great number of registered shipwrecks from the historical periods being managed by the FHA. Well-preserved shipwrecks are also central for hobby divers' interest that has been historically paramount for the development of the field. At the same time, discontinuities in academic training of maritime archaeologists have created a situation where opportunities for long-term and in-depth research at universities have been few. Future prospects of Finnish maritime archaeology are discussed with respect to the current state, and the interconnectedness of the heritage management sector, academically trained maritime archaeologists, and avocational diving societies and volunteers is emphasised as a key element in continued development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editors discuss articles in the issue on topics including narratives of archaeogenetics in relation to different audiences, the genetic interpretation of the spread of human populations, and the impact of the Third Science Revolution on archaeology.

The Third Science Revolution described by Kristian Kristiansen (2014) has been openly embraced and is currently underway in archaeology. It has brought considerable improvement in terms of scientific methods and approaches, but at the same time, it brings with it the risk of transforming archaeology into something that is methodologically uniform, inflexible, and oversimplified, or in other words, a methodologically monistic discipline. This is particularly evident when it comes to Big Data: the Third Science Revolution has inaugurated a new understanding of data, one that reduces archaeological reality exclusively to those elements that are quantifiable. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that archaeology needs to go beyond Big Data, and the Third Science Revolution in general, and embody qualitative research. This can be done by incorporating methods and theories from history and anthropology that contextualize the purposeful character of past human action. This requires (re)embracing case-study research, but also recognizing a meaning of 'case-study' that has been largely ignored: as a paradigmatic example of a Zeitgeist - a context where different institutions, power relations, and ideologies are all entwined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution contends that, with the recent genetic revolution, archaeology has reached a new scientism, a development that could lead to fewer opportunities in the epistemology of archaeology to think difference. Drawing from discussions in slow science and the related idea that scientific importance is a matter of concern rather than fact, the contribution proposes that archaeologists start to cultivate methods of deceleration. In particular, as a measure to mitigate the epistemological effects of archaeology's methodological acceleration, the contribution suggests the publishing of personal hunches, failed hypotheses, and so forth in addition to research results, and a cultivation of historical awareness in order to better anticipate possible epistemological effects of pursuing conflicting research interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a human fundamental need to know who we are and where we come from. In an age when myths, legends and family memories are starting to fade or become obsolete, science is brought in to fill the gaps and answer these questions. This article introduces a special theme section dedicated to critical reflections on the relationship between the disciplines of archaeology and archaeogenetics. It gives a summary of the 'Can science accommodate multiple ontologies? The genetics revolution and archaeological theory' workshop held in Cambridge in 2018, followed by an introduction to the papers in this theme section. Lastly, I evaluate archaeogenetic narratives in terms of their target audience, knowledge obtained (or not) and future directions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reviews reactions to the Anglo-American New Archaeology as expressed in publications by Finnish archaeologists since the early 1970s. These reactions, mainly provided by C.F. Meinander, are contextualised within the history of Finnish theoretical archaeology as well as contemporaneous Scandinavian, most importantly Swedish, archaeological theory. In the case of Meinander's ideas about the epistemology of archaeology, special reference is made to the writings of Mats Malmer, whose views as the progenitor of the Scandinavian variant of new archaeology greatly affected Meinander's philosophy of archaeology. As a programmatic set of epistemological principles, the New Archaeology was met with opposition in Finnish archaeology that has in some respect tended to be reluctant or slow in adopting or responding to new theoretical influences. In the article, the tardiness of Finnish theoretical archaeology is not seen as a shortcoming but rather as a deliberate choice that has allowed Finnish archaeologists to incorporate multiple theoretical and methodological approaches liberally, leading to a self-critical attitude toward the epistemology of archaeology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rapid development of natural scientific methods coupled with the recent popularity of new materialist philosophies in archaeological theory has raised discussion about the possibility of a return to empiricism in archaeology. While empiricism as a pragmatic philosophy is in line with archaeology’s hands-on character, the recent development has left some concerned about the vanishing role of vagueness and ambiguity in archaeological interpretation. In this setting, the exactitude of natural scientific methods is seen as a process of simplification that compromises the tacit dimensions of archaeological knowledge. This article discusses vagueness as an elementary part of all archaeological knowledge formation, with a particular emphasis on the role of perception and senses in finds analysis. Archaeological finds analysis is explored as an example of epistemologically vague and creative hypothesis formation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

With this paper I propose a reflection on the way interdisciplinarity is framed in reference to the study of archaeological human remains. It is often taken for granted that interdisciplinarity is valuable for archaeology - but why should it be? By taking the case study of the way ancient genomics research is rewriting the ‘Neolithic Revolution' narratives I show how the use of scientific methodologies influences and biases the kind of work that gets done and the questions that are asked. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers the author's insights regarding the Finnish reception of American philosopher Charles S. Peirce' philosophy and pragmatism. Topics discussed include the three branches of Finnish reception of Peirce such as philosophy of science, logic, and semiotics, the importance of the distinction of Peirce between corollary and theorematic reasoning, and the development of view by Mats Bergman on Peirce's semeiotics to improve communicative practices.