Altertumswissenschaft (Science of Antiquity) and Suggested That Also "Excavated Prehistory,"

Download as doc, pdf, or txt
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 17

Historical Archaeology in Western Europe

by

Ludomir R. Lozny

Hunter College, CUNY

Introduction

Academic archaeology has its roots in the “Great Tradition” 1 of European scholarship (Renfrew
1980:289). Archaeologists of the eighteenth and particularly the nineteenth century followed that
tradition and focused their interests on antiquity for primarily two reasons: The Enlightenment
freed antiquity of its biblical and theological context so it became the subject of intellectual
scrutiny; antiquity offered spectacular and visible on the surface evidence of the glorious past of
the Mediterranean region. Shrouded in mystery to raise interest of the educated and wealthy,
research of the ruins of the past guaranteed results, a significant circumstance for privately
funded and goal-oriented endeavors. Thus, scholars attempted to describe early civilizations of
the classical world such as the Sumerian Empire, the kingdoms of Egypt, Greek city-states, and
the Roman Empire. The prevailing at that time concept of archaeology was to accept all evidence
of the human past as historic and such understanding influenced the practice of archaeology in
many European countries. Hence the long-lasting relationship between history and archaeology
in Europe.

The German archaeologist Carl Schuchhardt (1908:944ff) expanded the concept of


Altertumswissenschaft (science of antiquity) and suggested that also “excavated prehistory,”
which provides evidence of the past hidden underground, is a part of “real” history.
Consequently, prehistoric archaeology became a part of the “Great Tradition.” Furthermore, the
acceptance of geography and ethnology as professional academic disciplines in Germany, and
later in other European countries, prompted a more systematic and broader scholarly interest in
the studies of the past societies. Subsequently, in addition to writing sources, spectacular art
objects and architecture, scholars also accepted less impressive remains of material cultures from
the past as historical records recovered by the means of archaeological methods.
1
For critical discussion of the “Great Tradition,” see Ferguson 2013.
Today researchers divide archaeology into two major subdisciplines: prehistoric and historic
archaeology. Prehistoric archaeology unravels the story of humanity of at least 2.5 million years
and focuses on all aspects of human social life, whereas historic archaeology might seem as an
ambiguous subdiscipline, being neither history nor prehistory (Deagan 1998), or prahistory, or
protohistory, as it is called in some European countries, for instance in Great Britain, Germany,
Poland, and Russia. It is the subject of this essay.

Definition

Historical archaeologists argue about the parameters that define the discipline. The term
historical archaeology has several meanings but it generally relates to researching societies living
at times for which we have written records. Thus, it concerns peoples who recorded themselves,
and also those who did not have access to script, in writing.

There are generally two understandings of historical archaeology: broader, favored by many
European archaeologists, and narrower, followed by some European and American
archaeologists.2 The broader “substantivist” understanding refers to the methodology of research.
It identifies historical archaeology as a discipline to study all societies who recorded themselves
and historical events they either caused, or to which they related, through the use of script
supported by archaeological records. According to this view, the range of historical archaeology
incorporates all the literate societies from the origins of script until modern times. Therefore, it
includes the archaeology of Mesopotamia and Egypt, the Indus River Valley and southern China,
archaeology of the Maya and the Aztecs, classical archaeology of Greece and the Roman Period,
medieval and post-medieval archaeology, archaeology of European colonies, urban archaeology,
industrial archaeology, etc.
Whereas the narrower, “formalist” understanding is strictly about the timeline of processes and
events in a specific historical context. In this view, historical archaeology becomes
interdisciplinary (bridging disciplinary divides to create new knowledge) and transdisciplinary

2
This duality reminds of Karl Polanyi (1944:44–49) discussion on the two meanings of economics: substantivits and
formalist. I shall use this distinction here to explain the two meanings of historical archaeology.
(use of different sources of knowledge by engaging various stakeholders) 3 field of research that
includes a variety of methodologies to examine the world’s history since about 1500 CE. The
definiens here is not just the use of script but the historical context of modernity 4 and the
expanding role of Western European countries worldwide and their cultural, primarily economic
and political, domination. According to this narrower meaning, the discipline concerns the post-
Columbian (post-Quincentennial) era and emphasizes Eurocentricity and the period of European
domination in the world at times of geographic discoveries, the beginnings of mercantilism and
the origin of capitalism related to colonialism and European political domination worldwide. In
this respect, scholars agree that historical archaeology relates to primarily the times around and
after 1500 CE. I subscribe to such understanding is this article.

The strict definition of historical archaeology is usually explored according to such factors as
purpose of research and chronology (American approach) and methodology (European concept),
drawing a distinction between the American tradition that defines the subject as ‘post-
Columbian’ and the European approach that establishes broader connections with what has been
called the ‘documentary archaeology’ of all literate societies. The American definition points out
to a specific historical event (1492) as the apical point of the timeline and context, while
European colleagues pay attention to the type of sources and methodology. Thus, traditional
definitions enlarge the scope of historical archaeology to include all ‘documentary archaeology’
(more on this in Gilchrist 2005), whereas recent definitions focus on specific chronological
periods and foci.
Briefly defined, historical archaeology is about studying the evidence and consequences of
European cultural (socioeconomic and political) domination from around 1500 CE until recent
times. It is chiefly about studying the evidence of broadly understood modernity and its
consequences including internal (intracontinental) and external (intercontinental) colonialism of
the British, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch, German, and Italian nations. Their interactions
3
Interdisciplinary approach is to synthesize several disciplines in an attempt to answer research questions or explain
a phenomenon; it is not about adding new methodologies to the practice of archaeology. Transdisciplinary research
(see also Mode 2 thinking) is about using various sources of knowledge by engaging the interested parties in order to
produce new knowledge. On the difference between interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach see brief but
informative article by Toomey et al. 2015.
4
I follow the chronology of modernity proposed by Marshall Berman (1982: 16–17), who divided modernity into
three periods: early (1500 – 1789), classical (1789 – 1900 [1914]), and late modernity (1900 – 1989).
and consequences of economic and political domination over regions and peoples worldwide,
dated from the end of the fifteenth century (the end of the Middle Ages) to modern times,
examined through the use of archaeological and historical methods define the core interests of
the discipline. Viewed in such a way, historical archaeology is interdisciplinary and its
methodology involves the use of methods to recover and process data on material culture, past
ecosystems (historical ecology), language (historical linguistics), geography (historical
geography), but it also dwells on methodologies and theories offered by cultural anthropology
(ethnology), sociology, political science, economics, demography, etc. It also becomes
transdisciplinary by engaging various stakeholders and their views to inspire conscientization.

In sum, based on the preferred view, the organizing concept for the discipline is either a history
of the literate world (broader substantive view), or a history of European political and economic
domination and the cultural context of modernity that produced suitable socioeconomic
conditions for the origin of capitalism (narrower formalist view). Either way, the unique position
of historical archaeology as a research field is the intersection of archaeological data and written
records, which allows simultaneous access to variety of sources. Modern Western European
historical archaeology crosses the artificial boundaries between classical (Mesopotamia, Egypt,
Greece, Rome), biblical, medieval, post-medieval, urban, industrial, underwater, etc.,
archaeologies. It utilizes common data, methods, methodology, and theory. Historical
archaeology also provides the means to study societies who for various reasons have not
produced written records of themselves but were impacted by literate cultures.

Historical background

Historical archaeology emerged in Europe and was exclusively related to researching the
classical periods, especially histories of ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and the Roman
Empire. Interests in medieval archaeology originated in the last decades of the nineteenth century
and intensified, along with post-medieval, throughout the twentieth century. Medieval
archaeology is now well established in Western Europe, but post-medieval and industrial
archaeologies are relatively new subdisciplines; both originated and developed within the last 50
years. Significant increase of post-medieval research focusing on the times after 1500 CE
occurred in Europe during the 1970s and 1980s and is growing (Fig.1). Much of post-medieval
archaeology sprung out from urban rescue archaeology and studies on material culture. Industrial
archaeology developed as “the social history of the working class” and is presently practiced in
many Western European countries to address the material evidence for industrialization of the
modern world. It deals with still largely intact industrial buildings, factories, and machines of the
last two centuries.

Thus, if one considers the wider meaning of historical archaeology related to the definition based
on methodological aspects, historical archaeology originated in the nineteenth century, whereas
the narrower meaning related to the chronological and contextual definition suggests that
historical archaeology, although rooted in the tradition of the late nineteenth century archaeology,
is a young discipline which matured in the second half of the twentieth century but is still
developing and searching for identity. Thus far, Western European historical archaeology has
been dominated by the British, German, Dutch, French, Scandinavian and to some extent
American research, and to date there has been little comparative work across the European
continent (Gilchrist 2005; Mehler 2013). Post-Medieval Archaeology remains the principal
society and a journal in Britain that focuses exclusively on the period after 1500 CE.

Fig. 1. Around here

North American vs European historical archaeology

Traditionally, European archaeologists consider archaeology as an auxiliary subfield of history


(part of the humanities), whereas in the US it mostly operates under the umbrella of
anthropology (part of the social sciences). Understandably then, European and American-trained
archaeologists view historical archaeology differently (for brief discussion see for instance
Mehler 2013). Such distinction is expressed in the definition of the discipline and rooted in its
key interests limited by the available sources. Because in North America literate period
originated with European colonialism, historical archaeologists study the colonial and
postcolonial times, battlefields, slavery, urbanization, mercantilism, industrialization, etc.,
whereas European archaeologists have a wider range of sources available and thus focus on
ancient literate societies, medieval and post-medieval, industrial, urban, or military archaeology,
etc.

Presently, archaeologists view historic archaeology not as an auxiliary subfield of history


regarded as a method of obtaining historic facts undocumented in script. They emphasize the
claim that it stands on its own. Current developments strongly suggest that the field refocused
from studying sheer historical events and from following traditional historical methodology
rooted in empirical (logical) positivism to researching historical processes with anthropological
methodology that includes evolutionary and comparative outlooks.5 This trend is common in the
US and is gaining popularity in Europe, although many topics studied by European scholars
remain oriented on histories of events rather than processes.

Generally, whether viewed as part of anthropology or history, historical archaeology operates in


two distinctive scales: diachronic scale – to observe changes over time, and synchronic – that
employs comparative analysis of cultures from the same period. Current historical archaeology,
whether European or American, is interested in addressing large-scale processes, visible in global
scale. It also dominates the practice of professional or contract archaeology across the globe, as
urban development and historic buildings conservation yield massive archaeological data from
last centuries. Therefore, even if historical archaeology is viewed as a history with spade, it must
not be seen as simply a method of providing data to illustrate historical events. It becomes
interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary and not just multidisciplinary. Linked to anthropology and
history, it seeks to understand the nature of modern life (cf. Orser and Fagan, 1995:14) in a
larger, global scale. Although it is mostly practiced in Europe and the US, archaeologists in other
regions develop strong interests in this discipline (see Curet 2011; Ikawa-Smith 2011; Politis and
Curtoni 2011; Thomas 2011; Sandelowski 201; Shimada and Vega-Centeno 2011; Shocoongdej
2011; Small 2011; Thomas 2011; Juwayeyi 2011).

Key issues and current debates

5
See M. Thurman (1998) conversations with Lewis Binford.
Although traditional Western European historical archaeology focuses on, for instance,
acculturation such as the Romanization of Western Europe (Fig. 2.), research topics related to
Romanization are phrased in terms of imperialism, colonialism, and military expansions. Among
new subjects that gain popularity are globalism, cultural domination and resistance, rise of
capitalism (commodification), industrialization, economic exploitation, ethnicity, gender, social
conflict, identity, etc. Presently, even if topics concern historical events they are frequently
examined in the context of historical process. Such processual outlooks relate to archaeology of
colonialism, migrations and culture contacts, archaeology of atrocities, archaeology of power,
archaeology of capitalism, archaeology of identity, archaeology of conflict and warfare,
industrial archaeology, etc.

One of the most significant among currently discussed topics is the research of societies who
otherwise did not record themselves in writing. It relates to studying former colonies in North
America, South America, Africa, and South Asia. One of the understudied area is the Hispanic
military frontier (Williams 1992:7) in the New World and its economic and political role. From
current studies we learn a great deal about the relationship between the colonizers and the
colonized. For instance, Spanish military installations (presidios) were initially economically
self-sufficient but after 1830 data reveal greater dependence on European-made products
(Williams 1992:7). It might suggest an increase in local political hostility but certainly point out
to changes in economic relationships between the New and Old Worlds. Such research also
examines the dependency relations between European early industrial economies and
undeveloped colonial peripheries.

The archaeology of African Diaspora and the history of slavery very much concerns Europe,
Africa, and the Americas. There is also an emerging interest in the British imperial diaspora that
unites the historical archaeology of Britain, Ireland, Canada, the United States, India, the
Caribbean, Australia, and New Zealand by exploring the legacy of involuntary transportation
from Ireland to Australia and contrasting historical and contemporary perceptions of British
penal transportation in the two countries. Historical archaeology must not be, however,
understood as just the history of European colonial and post-colonial times that dominates the
American version of historical archaeology (Fig. 3).

Figs 2 and 3 around here


The focus of French historical archaeology (see Bellan and Journot 2011 for a review of recent
projects) is on local monographs and long-lasting craft traditions, castles, villas, monasteries, and
fields, using the themes of symbolism, knowledge, constraint, power, and conflict. Urban
archaeology is emerging and studies of architectural monuments (chateau) are common (Fig. 4.).
Industrial archaeology and military archaeology (battlefields) increased in popularity throughout
Europe (Fig 5. and Fig.6.). Such topics are discussed in relationship to political and economic
systems and social arrangements and walls surrounding towns, fields, etc. The social history of
walls is not common. It reflects a range of social relations beyond the usually assumed defensive
functions and a conceptualization of walls needs to be readdressed in scholarship. It must include
an approach to investigate the social arrangements of space where walls become a part of the
landscape as much as buildings, monuments, streets, etc. Some of the European non-city walls
include the approx. 150 miles long Offa’s wall (dyke) that separates England and Wales and
Danevirke, a system of ca. 20 miles long fortifications in the present-day Schleswig-Holstein that
originated around 500 CE, has been rebuilt several times and last used in 1864. Such either
fortification or boundary markers and certainly noticeable landmarks also exist in other parts of
Europe (Samson 1992).

Historical archaeology is, understandably, gaining momentum in Italy, especially its urban
fraction and the study of the Renaissance but new trends such as landscape studies become
popular. Post-medieval, urban archaeology is also popular in Scandinavia and recently focused
on researching post-medieval farmsteads. Studies on cities, countryside and the relationship
between towns and countryside form the core of historical archaeology in the Netherlands and
other Low Countries (Fig. 7. and Fig. 8.). Archaeology of the great medieval cultural expansions
in Western Europe that laid out the foundation for modern Western Europe, especially related to
the Franks and Charlemagne and the Norse, are drawing attention of archaeologists and
historians.

Fig. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 about here

Theory and methodology

The epistemology of historical archaeology, as all other archaeologies, is framed within


modernity. Historical archaeology, as any other archaeology, has no theory of its own. Whether
European or American, it was until late 1980s - early 1990s inherently theory-free. Atheoretical
particularism characteristic of the culture history approach was typical for European archaeology
and historical archaeology. This is currently changing to incorporate a range of new
interpretations and theoretical views. As in history, interpretive approaches prevail over
empirically driven explanations and are often mixed with Marxism, especially dialectical
materialism is a popular approach, structuralism, and their epigones such as agency, etc. and
other social theories borrowed from sociology, political science, economics, etc. Theories of
material culture, and materiality in general, are common to both prehistoric and historic
archaeology. Processual, evolutionary-inspired approaches are not very common in Europe while
postprocessualism has influenced scholars in several European countries to replace traditional
empiricism and positivism. Postprocessual thought gained popularity in Britain and also
Scandinavia has become influenced by postmodern theories. Paul Courtney has recently (2009)
reviewed the state of theory in post-medieval archaeology in Europe and concluded that: “…
post-medieval archaeology is still largely entwined with medieval archaeology. The main driving
force for post-medieval archaeology has tended to be from urban archaeology (…). Rural
archaeology has been relatively undeveloped (…). The intellectual roots of post-medieval
archaeology across Europe (…) clearly lie in history, though anthropological influences have
grown (…).” Fragmentation of practice and theory has become another problem, however. One
area in which historical archaeology has begun to realize its unique potentials is that of basic
research in archaeology, or the development of middle-range theory to link our observations of
the archaeological record to a reasonable approximation of the past events that formed that
record (Deagan 1988:10).

In order to better understand the interest and key issues researched by historical archaeology and
also appreciate the current debates, the following two questions need to be address: How can
studying archaeology and history together contribute to better understanding of the human
condition past and present? and: How can archaeology and history enrich each other? A
combination of these two disciplines offers a new and unique methodological perspective to
study human culture and in effect produces results that neither one can achieve separately, simply
because texts present views on very selective historical events while archaeological data cover a
much wider range of events and processes which are better understood and assessed
chronologically when supported with written records.
Generally, topics of study within historical archaeology concern both, processes and events. All
are concerned about timelines and chronology supported by written sources. Methods to date
processes and events are easier in historical archaeology than in prehistoric archaeology because
in historical contexts either written sources or specific artifacts, such as coins, produce relatively
accurate dates. The problem is to link such finds with the archaeological context in which they
occur because coins often date not the time of their circulation but the event of deposition into
the archaeological context and therefore suggest a date ex post, but this problem relates to
methodology of research and not dating techniques.

There are issues related to the development of new means of production, accumulation of wealth
and power, distribution of goods and services, and human sociopolitical organization that can
only be understood through the use of methodology that makes reference to both documentary
and material accounts of the past conditions. Slavery, imperialism, class formation, cultural
syncretism, the manifestation of economic inequality among classes, consumer choice behavior
and accelerated environmental degradation are a few of the related topics that can be accurately
described and understood only by a historical archaeological approach that is, through the use of
written records in combination with material evidence (see Deagan 1988:8 for discussion).
Because of its unique methodology to utilize archaeological evidence supported by written
sources, historical archaeology also contributes to examining interconnections among various
social groups and culture change in a multiethnic context of modern nation-states.

Historical archaeology is diversified in respect to methodology. The practitioners mostly follow


the methodology of history but some also engage in studying various topics by employing the
anthropological perspective. Because one of the key problems in historical archaeology is to
investigate the concurrence of texts and artifacts (see Andren 1988 for discussion), historical
archaeology might seem as not fitting in the traditional anthropological framework of American
archaeology, but on the contrary, it inevitably establishes links with history and other related
disciplines, such as linguistics, art history but also political science and economics. While the
availability of documents has sometimes led to a particularistic brand of historical archaeology,
in which theory may be under-developed, the rich combination of sources has frequently
promoted wide-ranging methodological and theoretical innovation. The French contribution to
the methodology and theory of historical archaeology has been the approach identified as le
longue durée the history of long-term processes (changes) introduced by Fernand Braudel. It is
appropriate to emphasize that due to its unique methodology, historical archeology may
contribute to the advancement of theory in archaeology in general.

There is growing use of archaeometry, scientific analysis of artifacts, especially ceramic


(composition of paste) or metal objects (physical attributes of metals are used in addition to
stylistic analysis to trace the origin of certain objects), but in historic archaeology certain dating
techniques are more useful than other. For instance, absolute dating techniques such as carbon
dating is not always recommended in historic contexts because the range it offers (25, 50 or 100
years) might cover a significant portion of the studied period. Dendrochronology seems more
appropriate, for it offers a calendric date but its use is limited by the existence of local tree-ring
sequences and the fact that wood is not always present in archaeological sites or does not always
date the event but, like coins, suggest ex post dates (the “old wood” syndrome must be kept in
mind when using this method). On the other hand, written sources do not document all historical
events but selected ones. Therefore, the application of archaeological methods to research
traditional historical events and processes for which there is simply inadequate documentation
constitutes a valid and important focus in the field, and one that boasts the most successful
contributions of historical archaeology to date.

Future directions

Fragmentation of practice and theory has become a significant problem for historical
archaeologists during the twentieth century. Modern historical archaeology offers a different
outlook and it frequently crosses the interdisciplinary boundaries to utilize various methods,
methodology, and theory. As observed by Deagan (1988:7), in current approaches to the past
there is often little difference among studies in historical archaeology, cultural anthropology and
social history.

New methodology of historical archaeology incorporates the use of all kinds of written records,
not just narratives but also census data, personal accounts, diaries, etc. The study of material
culture has been expanded to also examine the material evidence of space and place which are
often manifested in the cultural landscape symbolically. The focus is also on intangible aspect of
human culture such as memories, symbolic meanings, etc. All these allow the use of a range of
new methods to record and manipulate the data. Therefore, twenty-first historical archaeology is
not just about written records and material archaeological data but it presently relates to oral
histories and memories, archaeology of place and space and indigenous narratives of places. A
combination of sources, such as written sources and oral histories (local knowledge), including
myths and local legends, are used in designing specific research approaches (Lozny 2006).
Significant changes are expected in the use of new theories as a range of theoretical views both
processual and post-processual in origin is replacing the atheoretical particularism characteristic
of the culture history approach. Historical archaeology must also continue to be interdisciplinary
and transdisciplinary.

Historical archeology provides good training to critically examine especially written sources and
evaluate how they relate to the archaeological record. In this sense historical archaeology
requires very specific methodology in the use of resources which might be, or simply are biased.
Because it deals with written records, knowledge of various languages, including those presently
not in use such as Latin or ancient Greek, is essential (if we accept the broader view of historical
archaeology). Landscape archaeology although not exclusive to it became a significant new
nondestructive approach to study histories of space (Lozny 2012; and Fig. 9. Pyrenees).

Fig. 9 about here

There has recently been an attempt to claim a universal character to historical archaeology. The
most comprehensive and articulate argument for a global historical archaeology has been
formulated by Charles E. Orser (1996), pledging for the definition of the discipline as the study
of the modern world, characterized by a single economy that is colonial, international and
expanding. There are four key concepts defining this new reality: global colonialism,
eurocentrism, capitalism, and modernity. The call for a global ‘modern-world archaeology’
addresses the ‘grand historical narratives’ of the last 500 years and specifically such phenomena
as capitalism, economic improvement, and consumerism. This approach may, however, channel
archaeological thinking into certain more general directions seeking explanations at the global
scale and may in effect hamper intellectual advancement in so many other subjects needing
research on local scales. Nevertheless, the larger point here is that some consensus between
European post-medieval and American historical archaeology is necessary in order to break free
from the parochial approach to study the past, as it happened throughout the twentieth century.

Historical archaeology has been, and in some cases still is, politicized and often used for political
gains to promote a range of nationalistic agendas (Arnold 1990; Galaty and Watkinson 2004;
Lozny 2017) and such use to justify political claims has been common (ample examples from
around the world are discussed by various authors in Lozny 2011). Regrettably, such practice
will probably continue as the research offered by the social sciences and the humanities is often
used for political gains.

Historical archaeologists must also be concerned with ethical practice what constitutes the right
conduct and, in this instance, disagreement arises over exactly where ethical responsibilities lie.
Historical archaeologists, as all other scientists, must not cross the line that separates scholars
from activists, they must honestly report on their findings following the code of scientific
conduct and not their personal political agendas. The ethical responsibility here is to the public
who are not just the consumers of archaeological knowledge but also our sponsors and any
violation of such ethical conduct must be pointed out and censured. The very fact that historical
archaeologists engage in an open exchange of ideas about how they affect the people whose
heritages they study is an optimistic sign. As discussed by Beaudry (2009), because historical
archaeology deals with issues still remaining within memory of many individuals and groups,
scholars must follow specific ethical code. The ethical issues are relevant to all studies and will
continue to be applied to the traditional interests of historical archaeology such as urban
archaeology, archaeology of rural areas, archaeology of power, domination and resistance, or
material studies. Ethical issues might become particularly significant in the European theater,
should the interest grow in studies of phenomena related to the recent history such as forced
migration and displacement of large groups in Europe, diasporas, ethnic cleansing and violence,
the historical significance of the two most potent and vicious social systems of the twentieth
century – fascism and communism, war atrocities, ethnic cleansing, social movements, and also
larger social phenomena such as colonialism and post-colonial environment evidenced in
multicultural societies in Europe and elsewhere, the significance of cultural heritage in
multiethnic societies and its relation to sustainable development, etc. These are the most pressing
issues to be studied by historical archaeologists in the twenty-first century.
Historical archaeology in the Academia

Historical archaeology is taught at several European universities in Great Britain, Germany,


France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, and many aspects are also covered in classes
related to medieval archaeology or art history. The academic aspect of historical archaeology
would require a separate study and thus is not the concern in this essay.

Historical archaeology and preservation (conservation)

Historical archaeology forms a core of many culture managements and preservation


(conservation) institutions and services in western Europe, such as English Heritage
(Historic Building and Monuments Commission for England), French Institut National
de Recherches Archéologiques Préventives (INRAP), German Denkmalschutzämter and
Stadt-und Kreisarchäologien, Dutch Rijksdients voor het Oudheidkunding
Bodenmonderzoek (ROB), Swedish Riksantikvarieämbetet and offices of the Italian
Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali and Spanish Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural
de Espana to name a few. These are the strongholds of Western European historical
archaeology as places of research and employment.

References

Andren, A. 1998. Between Artefacts and Texts: Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective.
New York: Plenum

Arnold, B. 1990. The Past as Propaganda: Totalitarian Archaeology in Nazi Germany. Antiquity
64: 464-78.

Beaudry, M. C. 2009. Ethical Issues in Historical Archaeology. In T. Majewski, D. Gaimster ed.,


International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, New York: Springer.

Bellan, G. & F. Journot, ed. 2011, Archéologie de la France moderne et contemporaine. Paris: La
Decouverte.

Berman, M., 1982, All That Is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Courtney, P. 2009. The Current State and Future Prospects of Theory in European Post-Medieval
Archaeology. In T. Majewski & D. Gaimster, ed. International Handbook f Historical
Archaeology. New York: Springer.

Curet, A., 2011, Archaeology in Cuba and the Caribbean Islands. In: Lozny, L. R. ed.
Comparative Archaeologies: A Sociological View of the Science of the Past, pp. 641-672. New
York: Springer.

Deagan, K. A. 1988. Neither History Nor Prehistory: the Questions that Count in Historic
Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 22.1:7-12

Galaty, M. L. and Ch. Watkinson, ed. 2004, Archaeology Under Dictatorship. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Press.

Gilchrist, R. 2005. Introduction: scales and voices in world historical archaeology. World
Archaeology, Vol. 37, No. 3:329-336.

Ferguson, James, R., 2013, Great Traditions and Grand Narratives, Culture Mandala: Bulletin of
the Centre for East-West Cultural and Economic Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2, October -
December 2013, pp15-40.

Ikawa-Smith, F., 2011, Archaeology in Contemporary Japan. In: Lozny, L. R. ed. Comparative
Archaeologies: A Sociological View of the Science of the Past, pp. 675-706. New York:
Springer.

Lozny, L.R. 2006, Place, Historical Ecology and Cultural Landscape: New Directions for Culture
Resource Management. In: Ludomir R, Lozny, ed., Landscapes Under Pressure. Theory and
Practice of Cultural Heritage Research and Preservation, pp. 15-26. New York: Springer.

Lozny, L. R. ed. 2011. Comparative Archaeologies: A Sociological View of the Science of the
Past. New York: Springer.

Lozny, L. R. 2012, Landscape archaeology of the Labas Valley, Central Pyrenees. In L. R. Lozny,
ed. Continuity and Change in Cultural Mountain Adaptations: From Prehistory to
Contemporary Threats, pp. 123-206. New York: Springer.

Lozny, L. R., ed. 2017 Archaeology of the Communist Era. A Political History of Archaeology of
the Twentieth Century. New York: Springer.

Mahler, N., 2013, Globalization, Immigration, and Transformation: Thoughts from a European
Perspective, Historical Archaeology, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 38-49.

Marriner, N., 2009. Currents and trends in the archaeological sciences. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 36.12:2811–2815.

Orser, C.E. 1996. A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World, New York: Plenum.
Orser, C.E. and Fagan, B. M. (1995). Historical Archaeology, New York: HarperCollins.

Podgorny, I., 2011, “Silent and alone”. How the ruins of an ancient city found close to Palenque
were taught to talk the language of archaeology (Mesoamerica). In: Lozny, L. R. ed.
Comparative Archaeologies: A Sociological View of the Science of the Past, pp. 520-554. New
York: Springer.

Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation. New York.

Politis G. G. and R. P. Curtoni, 2011, Archaeology and Politics in Argentina: The Last Fifty
Years. In: Lozny, L. R. ed. Comparative Archaeologies: A Sociological View of the Science of the
Past, pp. 495-526. New York: Springer.

Renfrew, C. 1980. The Great Tradition versus the Great Divide: Archaeology as Anthropology?
American Journal of Archaeology, 84 (3):287-98.

Samson, R., 1992, Knowledge, Constraint, and Power in Inaction: The Defenseless Medieval
Wall, Historical Archaeology 26(3):26-44.

Schuchhardt, C., 1908. Ein Stück trojanischer Forschung. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 40:943–950.

Izumi Shimada and Rafael Vega-Centeno, 2011, Peruvian Archaeology: Its Growth,
Characteristics, Practice and Challenges. In: Lozny, L. R. ed. Comparative Archaeologies: A
Sociological View of the Science of the Past, pp. 569-612. New York: Springer.

Rasmi Shocoongdej, 2011, Contemporary Archaeology as a Global Dialogue: Reflections from


Southeast Asia Archaeology in Southeastern Asia. In: Lozny, L. R. ed. Comparative
Archaeologies: A Sociological View of the Science of the Past, pp. 707-730. New York: Springer.

Thurman, Melburn, D., 1998, Conversations with Lewis R. Binford on Historical Archaeology,
Historical Archaeology 32(2):28-55.

Toomey, A. H., Markusson, N., Adams, E., and Brockett, B. (2015). Inter- and transdisciplinary
research: A critical perspective. Submitted to Global Sustainable Development Report Chapter 7
Policy Brief. Retrieved from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/612558-
Inter-%20and%20Trans-disciplinary%20Research%20-%20A%20Critical%20Perspective.pdf

Frank Thomas, 2011, Pacific Islands Archaeology. Lozny, L. R. ed. In: Comparative
Archaeologies: A Sociological View of the Science of the Past, pp. 731-767. New York: Springer.

Beatrice Sandelowsky, 2011, The Status of Archaeology and Anthropology in Southern Africa
Today: Namibia as Example. Lozny, L. R. ed. Comparative Archaeologies: A Sociological View
of the Science of the Past, pp. 769-784. New York: Springer.
Williams, Jack, S., 1992, The Archaeology of Underdevelopment and the Military Frontier of
Northern New Spain, Historical Archaeology 26(1):7-21.

Yusuf Juwayeyi, 2011, Excavating the History of Archaeology in Malawi. Lozny, L. R. ed.
Comparative Archaeologies: A Sociological View of the Science of the Past, pp. 785-806. New
York: Springer.

Further readings

Falk, L. ed. 1991. Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective. Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution Press.

Funari, P. P. A., M. Hall and S. Jones, ed. 1999. Historical archaeology: back from the edge.
London: Routledge.

Hall, M. and S. W. Silliman, ed. 2006. Historical Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell

Hicks, D. and M.C. Beaudry, ed. 2006. The Cambridge Companion of Historical Archaeology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Majewski, T. and D. Gaimster, ed. 2009. International Handbook of Historical Archaeology,


New York: Springer.

Noel-Hume, I.1967. Historical Archaeology. New York: Alfred Knopf.

Orser, C. E. Jr, 2002, ed. Encyclopedia of Historical Archaeology. London and New York:
Routlage.

Schuyler, R. ed. 1979. Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical


Contributions. Farmingdale, NY: Baywood Publishing Company.

South, S. 1977. Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy