Altertumswissenschaft (Science of Antiquity) and Suggested That Also "Excavated Prehistory,"
Altertumswissenschaft (Science of Antiquity) and Suggested That Also "Excavated Prehistory,"
Altertumswissenschaft (Science of Antiquity) and Suggested That Also "Excavated Prehistory,"
by
Ludomir R. Lozny
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hicks, D. and M.C. Beaudry, ed. 2006. The Cambridge Companion of Historical Archaeology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Orser, C. E. Jr, 2002, ed. Encyclopedia of Historical Archaeology. London and New York:
Routlage.
South, S. 1977. Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.