scholarly journals The History of Archaeology in the Western Balkans

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
History Of Archaeology ◽  
Western Balkans ◽  
History Of

scholarly journals Prikaz//Review: Journal of the Faculty of Philosophy in Sarajevo (History, History of Arts, Archeology), posebno izdanje: Reflections on Life and Society in the Western Balkans. Studies in the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, knjiga 7, broj 2, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo 2020, 321 str.

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 385-389
Author(s):  
Emina Mostić ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Review Journal ◽  
Western Balkans ◽  
History Of

Prikaz//Review: Journal of the Faculty of Philosophy in Sarajevo (History, History of Arts, Archeology), posebno izdanje: Reflections on Life and Society in the Western Balkans. Studies in the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, knjiga 7, broj 2, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo 2020, 321 str.

Stone Tools

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodney Harrison
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Material Culture ◽  
Stone Tools ◽  
Stone Tool ◽  
History Of Archaeology ◽  
Culture Studies ◽  
Old World ◽  
Material Culture Studies ◽  
History Of

The focus of this article is stone tools. The history of stone tool research is linked integrally to the history of archaeology and the study of the human past, and many of the early developments in archaeology were connected with the study of stone artefacts. The identification of stone tools as objects of prehistoric human manufacture was central to the development of nineteenth-century models of prehistoric change, and especially the Three Age system for Old World prehistory. This article draws on concepts derived from interdisciplinary material culture studies to consider the role of the artefact after being discarded. It suggests that it is impossible to understand the meaning or efficacy of stone tools without understanding their ‘afterlives’ following abandonment. This article aims to complement contemporary metrical studies of the identification of stone tools and the description of their production. A brief history of the stone tools is explained and this concludes the article.

Aftermath

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Rowley-Conwy
Keyword(s):  
Stage Theory ◽  
Archaeological Theory ◽  
History Of Archaeology ◽  
Ancient History ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Academic Context ◽  
Anglophone Literature ◽  
Physical Evidence ◽  
System A ◽  
History Of

We have followed the story of the Three Age System a very long way indeed. We saw how it emerged in Copenhagen and Lund, how it was received there, and how Worsaae fought to establish it there. We then saw how it came to Britain, and followed in Worsaae’s footsteps from London to Edinburgh to Dublin and back to London again. In each of the three capitals in which it was considered, accepted or rejected, the academic context was quite different from the others. In London the archaeologists were safe sheltering under the dominant ethnological paradigm, and for some time saw no reason to venture out from beneath it. In Edinburgh the Four Stage Theory and long links with Denmark made the Scandinavian story much easier to swallow rapidly. In Dublin the historical elite was so blinded by the glory of their ancient history that there was no place for the archaeological theory, and it had to be carried into the capital by an originally provincial archaeological movement. Back in London, the safe ethnological chronology was jolted out of alignment by the discovery of human antiquity, and alongside this—and on the back of high-quality archaeological excavation—the Three Age System finally won the day. Some aspects of the story have long been well known. The roles of C. J. Thomsen, of J. J. A. Worsaae, of Daniel Wilson, and of John Lubbock have all received much exposure in discussions of the history of archaeology. But in following this story we have also sometimes looked beneath stones that have seldom if ever previously been lifted in this connection, at least in the Anglophone literature. It has for example rarely been understood that Thomsen’s ‘idea of prehistory’ was not simply forging back into hitherto uncharted chronological territory, but was to begin with leaning on the elaborate ancient historical structure of Peter Frederik Suhm. It was only when Christian Molbech kicked away this structure in the 1830s that the Three Age System had to stand on its own. Fortunately it was rapidly supported by three other chronologies employing physical evidence, and they acted as supports in its very earliest days of independence. When Worsaae hastened ancient history into its grave in the 1840s, the Three Age System was therefore able to stand on its own four feet (archaeology, economy, ecology, and craniology).

Excavating Women: Towards an Engendered History of Archaeology (1998)

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margarita Díaz-Andreu ◽  
Marie Louise Stig Sørensen
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual History ◽  
History Of Archaeology ◽  
Disciplinary History ◽  
The Usa ◽  
History Of ◽  
Minor Part ◽  
A Minor ◽  
Critical Historiography ◽  
Knowledge Claims

Gender archaeology has by now become a relatively well-established research topic within archaeology. Recent years have seen the publication of a number of edited volumes, a rapidly expanding number of papers, and even a few journals and newsletters dedicated to this subject. It is, therefore, very surprising that in this literature the historiographic analysis of women archaeologists has played only a minor part. Likewise they are hardly acknowledged in the ‘folk’ histories of the discipline (Lucy and Hill 1994: 2). The need to understand the disciplinary integration of women, to appreciate the varying socio-political contexts of their work, to reveal the unique tension between their roles as women and their academic lives, has become obvious and is strongly felt in many areas of the discipline. The insights yielded by such analysis will have significance at many levels and will be of paramount importance for the intellectual history of archaeology. In particular, such insights will necessitate a much-needed revision of disciplinary history by revealing its mechanisms of selecting and forgetting, and will play an important role in the analysis of archaeology’s knowledge claims. Histories of archaeology have broadly accepted, and spread, a perception of archaeology as being male-centred, both intellectually and in practice. These accounts, written by male archaeologists such as Glyn Daniel (1975), Alain Schnapp (1993), and Bruce Trigger (1989), are inevitably androcentric in their conceptualization and reconstruction of the disciplinary past. Their versions have, however, recently begun to be contested, as concern with critical historiography has grown, and a few explicit historiographical accounts of women archaeologists have appeared. So far, with regard to the role of women, the most extensive contributions are the edited volumes by Claassen (1994) and du Cros and Smith (1993). While providing an important beginning, these publications show that there is still a long way to go. In particular they demonstrate a gap in research coverage, as no investigation of the contribution of women outside the USA and Australia exists.

The Role of Biography in Writing the History of Archaeology (1992)

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas R. Givens
Keyword(s):  
No Value ◽  
History Of Archaeology ◽  
History Of Anthropology ◽  
Historical Evidence ◽  
Past Work ◽  
The Past ◽  
Institutional Influences ◽  
History Of ◽  
Made In

The history of any discipline involves the explanation of its past and how the past has influenced its development through time. Its ‘objects are events which have finished happening, and conditions no longer in existence. Only when they are no longer perceptible do they become objects of historical thought’ (Collingwood 1946: 233). Writing the history of archaeology involves the analysis of past events and of the contributions that individual archaeologists have made to its development through time. The roles of individuals in archaeology are best seen in biographical accounts of their labours and in the contributions to the discipline that they have made. In general, historians of archaeological science, who are interested in explaining the roles of the individuals in its development, must focus their attention on three important items. First, the most important item is evidence that something has occurred. If individuals’ contributions have no basis in truth and cannot be justified, then they are of no value to the historian of archaeology. Second, the historical picture of individuals’ lives and work must have defined boundaries in space and time. These provide the area of focus for study and description of individuals’ activities. Third, the efforts of individual practitioners must be couched within the intellectual climate in which they are made. Individuals’ contributions are not made in an intellectual vacuum, apart from collegial or institutional influences. Biography, as a tool for writing the history of archaeology, must embrace all of these requisites. For those engaged in explaining archaeology’s past, historical evidence of event and period provide the foundation upon which we can trace our science’s development. Studying and evaluating past work can be helpful in separating useful and outdated methodologies of the field and laboratory. Moreover, the study of the history of anthropology may give the anthropologist needed ‘distance from their own theoretical and methodological preoccupations’ (Darnell 1974: 2). What we see anthropology today as being is certainly not what the ultimate science of humankind will be in the future.

Celebrating the annus mirabilis

Antiquity ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 83 (320) ◽  
pp. 458-461
Author(s):  
Christopher Evans
Keyword(s):  
Charles Darwin ◽  
History Of Archaeology ◽  
Origin Of Species ◽  
150Th Anniversary ◽  
Polite Society ◽  
History Of ◽  
Annus Mirabilis ◽  
First Time

AbstractWe are grateful to Chris Evans for convening and introducing this imaginative archaeological tribute to the work of Charles Darwin, 150 years after the publication of his On the origin of species – the inspiration for an evolutionary concept of history in so many fields. June 2009 is also the 150th anniversary of a yet more momentous event in the history of archaeology, the endorsement of the antiquity of human tool-making by observations in the Somme gravels. Clive Gamble and Robert Kruszynski reconstruct the occasion and publish the famous axe for the first time. Chris Evans returns to present us with the bitter-sweet spectacle of the Darwin family as excavators and Tim Murray rediscovers a suite of pictures made for John Lubbock which show how prehistoric life was envisaged in polite society at the time. Lastly we are grateful to Colin Renfrew for his own reflections on the anniversary.

The Cambridge History of Archaeology

1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (1) ◽  
pp. 81
Author(s):  
Bruce Routledge ◽  
Paul Bahn
Keyword(s):  
History Of Archaeology ◽  
History Of
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document