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

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)

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.

On the International Roots of Prehistory (2002)

In recent years, considerable attention has been dedicated to the involvement of archaeology (and most notably prehistory) with nationalism. The probable causes of this recent fashion need not concern us here, but the movement itself is certainly welcome, testifying to the reflection of archaeologists on their own practices and those of their predecessors. For historians, this trend is quite welcome in so far as it contributes to a general renaissance of interest in the past of the discipline. However, a more careful examination of this historiography leads us to some caution about its significance. First, the majority of these historical studies adopt an internalist perspective that, combined with their self-declared reflexiveness, confers on them a rather presentist character. The result belongs to some sort of ‘history of ideas’ that has been embellished with a few sociological insights of varying subtlety. In line with the old sociology of science, social factors are only invoked to explain the ‘errors’ of archaeology. Such errors, therefore, always seem to be accounted for by external and, by definition, pernicious influences. As a consequence our discipline always escapes unscathed: its ‘purity’ is not at stake, simply because it is always ‘society’ and ‘politics’ that abuse it. Moreover, most attention is given to the interpretations of the past, not to archaeological research as such. It is not the historical practice of the discipline that is then under consideration, but rather its thematic scope—which is quite a different matter. However, conceptions of identity based on the past are by no means the exclusive preserve of archaeology. No one has been waiting for the birth of our discipline in order to gloat over the ‘heroic deeds of our glorious ancestors’. As a matter of fact, in terms of nationalism, archaeology has entered quite late into the fray, on a terrain that was by then already demarcated. The wealth of historical case studies suggests that from its origins, archaeology, and more specifically prehistoric archaeology, has been strictly dependent on the emergence of national ideologies. The general impression is clear: were it not for the dynamics of modern nationalism, the argument goes, our discipline would never have emerged.

Between Antiquarians and Archaeologists—Continuities and Ruptures (2002)

The current renewal of interest in the history of archaeology has several causes, but it is primarily the result of the extraordinary extension of the discipline’s objectives and methods. During the last decades, the most far-flung regions of the earth have been subjected to systematic exploration, radiometric dating techniques have continually improved, DNA studies have contributed to the transformations of biological anthropology, and indeed the very process of human evolution has been cast in new light by the changing boundaries between human and animal behaviour. A natural science for many founding fathers of prehistory, a social science for those who emphasize its anthropological dimensions, archaeology has remained for others a historical discipline by virtue of its proximity to ancient languages and inscriptions. At one end of the spectrum, some archaeologists see themselves as specialists in material culture, able to deal with objects, both ancient and modern, as simultaneously technical and semiotic systems. At the other end, there are those who will put their faith only in the detailed approach of singular, particular cultures. To put the matter in extreme terms: it seems as if there is a universalist archaeology standing in opposition to a plethora of incompatible and irreducible vernacular archaeologies. In this context, appeals to the history of archaeology can be understood as recourse to the multiplicity of approaches and traditions characteristic of the discipline. The pioneering work of B. Trigger (1989) and L. Klejn (1973, 1977) has contributed much in this respect to our understanding of the development of archaeological thought. Until then, in effect, the history of archaeology was mainly conceived of as a history of discoveries, without taking much account of the ideas and institutions surrounding them. It is ironic to recall that the first syntheses of archaeology in the nineteenth century were rather conceived as phenomenologies of art (Müller 1830), or as histories of oeuvres and their interpretation (Starck 1880). It appears that the critique of the archaeology of art, during the second half of the nineteenth century, had as one of its side effects the rejection of a history of ideas in favour of one centred on discoveries.

Historiography (2001)

Historical works dealing with archaeology have been written to entertain the public, commemorate important archaeologists and research projects, instruct students in the basic concepts of the discipline, justify particular programmes or ideas, disparage the work of rivals, and, most recently, try to resolve theoretical problems. These studies have taken the form of autobiographies, biographies, accounts of the development of the discipline as a whole, investigations of specific institutions or projects, and examinations of particular theories and approaches. They have used the analytical techniques of intellectual and social history and sought to treat their subject objectively, critically, hermeneutically, and polemically. Over time, historical studies have become more numerous, diversified, and sophisticated. Histories of archaeology are being written for all parts of the world, and in a growing number of countries, a large amount of material is being produced at local as well as national levels. There is no end in sight to the growing interest in this form of research. The history of archaeology has been written mainly by professional archaeologists, who have no training in history or the history of science, and by popularizers. Only a small number of these studies have been produced by professional historians. Archaeology has attracted little attention from historians of science, despite its considerable interest to philosophers of science. This lack of interest is hard to understand since the difficulties inherent in inferring human behaviour from archaeological evidence make archaeology an ideal discipline for addressing many of the issues of objectivity that are currently of interest to historians of science. The earliest use of the history of archaeology appears to have been for didactic purposes. In the mid-nineteenth century, the physicist Joseph Henry, the first secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, sought to purge American archaeology of useless speculation and to encourage an interest in factual research. To do this, he commissioned Samuel F. Haven, the librarian of the American Antiquarian Society, to write a critical historical review of studies of American prehistory titled Archaeology of the United States (1856). To improve the quality of American archaeology, Henry also published reports on developments in the discipline in the Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, which was widely distributed in North America.

How to Benefit from Received Ideas (2001)

Like Gulliver, the intrepid explorer depicted in Samuel Butler’s novella Erewhon visits an odd country whose image, inverted as its name, is evidently that of the Western world. Throughout his travels, the adventurer converses with the eccentric scholars of Erewhon who devote themselves to singular enterprises, such as the formation of the ‘Society for the Suppression of Useless Knowledge’ (Butler 1985). If somebody were to suppress useless knowledge in this day and age, there could be a substantial number of victims. Fortunately, no one finds it necessary to question the raison d’être of institutionally established knowledge, provided that sufficient funds are available to ensure its survival. The question of usefulness is only raised where marginal knowledge is concerned. The fact that we question whether the history of archaeology is useful or not testifies to its marginality. For it is marginal, despite belonging to the history of science, a domain in which all disciplines should theoretically inspire historians’ interest to the same extent. This, however, is not the case. Historians seem to prefer studying either sciences considered as the greatest conquests of Western rationality (such as modern physics, Darwinism, molecular genetics, etc.) or theories supposed to be excessively irrational (such as Renaissance medicine, Stalinist genetics, Nazi biology, astrology, etc.). It is commonly believed that archaeology does not belong to either of these categories. The history of archaeology is as marginal to archaeologists as it is to historians. This is particularly apparent in France, where most archaeologists would not hesitate to respond in the negative to the question of whether disciplinary history matters to current scientific practices. Since the nineteenth century, certain French archaeologists and prehistorians have indeed written on the history of their discipline, but this activity was a task usually reserved for emeritus scholars who took it up in a somewhat nonchalant manner, as if to crown their archaeological œuvre, and probably motivated by the same reasons which prompt certain people, at the same point in their lives, to write their memoirs. There are some notable exceptions, of which are the works of Alain Schnapp, particularly his monumental The Discovery of the Past (Schnapp 1996).

A History of Archaeology in Brazil (2001).

The history of archaeology in Brazil has been divided into phases following different criteria. Most authors consider that archaeology should have its own disciplinary history, not tied to the overall political history of the country. A. Prous (1992) identified five periods and A. Mendonça de Souza (1991) followed the same disciplinary history approach, but proposed only four periods. The history of archaeology in Brazil should not, however, be considered independent from Brazilian history. Because the development of archaeology’s practice, theory, and methodology depends directly on the socio-political conditions in a given country, it is possible to relate the social practice of archaeology and political changes. As with any intellectual endeavour, archaeological activities are the result of social conditions and relations prevailing in different periods. Thus we can say that archaeology in Brazil went through seven phases: the colonial period (1500–1822); the Brazilian empire (1822–89); the early republic (1889–1920s); the formative period (1920–49); the inception of university research (1950–64); the military period, and the constitution of an archaeological establishment (1964–85); and current trends, democratic and pluralist archaeology (1985 onwards). There are few references in colonial sources to archaeological sites, although F. Cardim (1925) notes that shell mounds were identified in Brazil by their Tupi name sambaquis as early as 1583, and F. Coelho’s soldiers, as early as 1598, mention rock inscriptions (Prous 1992: 5). However, travellers and writers such as Y. d’Euvreux (1985), G. Soares (1944), G. Carvajal (1942), A. Thevet (1944) and H. Staden (1930), among others, described native inhabitants and their culture, furnishing a lot of data on Indian material culture. Thanks to these sources, it is possible to study native settlements while taking into full account the historic evidence relating to the following areas: the East Amazon basin area, Porro 1992; Taylor 1992; Erikson 1992; Wright 1992; the North Amazon region, Farage and Santilli 1992; Menéndez 1992; Amoroso 1992; the South Amazon area, Perrone-Moisés 1992; Franchetto 1992; Lopes da Silva 1992; the north-east, Paraíso 1992; Dantas, Sampaio, and Carvalho 1992; the south-west, Carvalho 1992; the south, Monteiro 1992; Kern 1982; the entire country, Fausto 1992.

Gustaf Kossinna (1858–1931) (2001)

Kossinna was an outstanding German archaeologist who specialized in prehistoric archaeology and was the founder of the ‘residence or settlement school of archaeology’ (Siedlungsärchaologie). He was a contradictory figure. Although he taught many prominent archaeologists, he very rarely attended excavations. A man of extraordinary erudition, an incomparable connoisseur of a huge range of archaeological material, he was a militant amateur in the discipline. He is considered, with some justification, to be the precursor of Nazi archaeology. However, it was not his conception but rather that of his opponent Carl Schuchhardt that became the official archaeological line in Hitler’s Germany. Kossinna’s method of settlement archaeology was implemented in the Soviet Union after the Second World War. His rather dull hagiographical biography was written in Nazi Germany, but his person and activity are described vividly, sensibly, and critically in Eifurrung in die Vorgeschichte (Introduction to Prehistory) by H.-J. Eggers (1959), and some of the early episodes with Alfred Gotze and Schuchhardt are discussed in detail in that book. Gustaf Kossinna was born in 1858 in Tilsit, in what was formerly East Prussia. His father was a secondary school teacher; his mother descended from the gentry. A small and sickly child, Kossinna absorbed the humanistic and pedantic culture of German teachers, mastering Latin and literature, playing the piano, and working hard. This culture— impregnated with German nationalism, with national enthusiasm, and missionary hopes—was the direct result of the politics of the time, when Prussia was the leader of German unification. Kossinna consecutively attended the universities of Göttingen, Leipzig, Berlin, and Strasbourg. In Berlin he attended lectures in classical and German philology, history, and geography. Lectures by K. Müllenhof on German and Indo-European linguistics (the latter was called Indo-German then) especially fascinated him. The problem of the location of the original Indo-German homeland (Urheimat) was to preoccupy him for his entire life. In 1881 he defended his thesis in Strasbourg on the purely linguistic subject ‘Ancient Upper- Frankian Written Monuments’. He then became a librarian and from 1892 worked in the library of the University of Berlin.

The Past as Propaganda: Totalitarian Archaeology in Nazi Germany (1990)

To understand events in German prehistoric archaeology under the National Socialists, it is necessary to look at the discipline well before Hitler’s rise to power in 1933 and the beginning of the Umbruch period of radical change. Archaeology in Central Europe on the eve of the First World War was marked by a return of the ethno-historic approach to theory; in German-speaking regions there was a new name for the discipline to go with its new orientation. The term Vorgeschichte (prehistory) was rejected as a survival of anthropological thinking: Urgeschichte (early history) was preferred as better emphasizing the continuity of prehistory with documentary history (Sklenár 1983: 132). The writings of the nineteenth-century French racial philosopher Gobineau provided a doctrine of the inequality of different races (Daniel and Renfrew 1988: 104–6). Journals and publications dealing with the subject of race and genetic engineering increasingly appeared in Germany in the early twentieth century, among them Volk und Rasse, which was founded in 1926, and Fortschritte der Erbpathologie und Rassenhygiene, founded in 1929. Neither publication survived the Second World War. The linguist Gustaf Kossinna (1858–1932), a late convert to prehistory, laid the groundwork for an ethnocentric German prehistory. Kossinna proposed cultural diffusion as a process whereby influences, ideas, and models were passed on by more advanced peoples to the less advanced with which they came into contact. This concept, wedded to Kossinna’s Kulturkreis theory, the identification of geographical regions with specific ethnic groups on the basis of material culture, lent theoretical support to the expansionist policies of Nazi Germany. ‘Distribution maps of archaeological types became a convincing argument for expansionist aims: wherever a single find of a type designated as Germanic was found, the land was declared ancient German territory’ (Sklenár 1983: 151; Fig. 7.2). Alfred Rosenberg, the NS party’s ideologist, codified this ethnocentric and xenophobic perspective: ‘an individual to whom the tradition of his people (Volkstum) and the honor of his people (Volksehre) is not a supreme value, has forfeited the right to be protected by that people’ (Germanenerbe 1938: 105).

Uses of the Past: Archaeology in the Service of the State (1987)

Nation states, or partisans thereof, control and allocate symbolic resources as one means of legitimizing power and authority, and in pursuit of their perceived nationalistic goals and ideologies. A major symbolic resource is the past. In this chapter I review three cases in which the past and, in particular, relevant archaeological resources were ‘used’ for such purposes, and I refer to several other well-known instances. The three cases discussed are Mexico from c.AD 900 to the present, Britain from c.AD 1500 to the present, and the People’s Republic of China since 1949. The implications of such uses in relation to archaeological theories and interpretations are discussed. In The Uses of the Past, Herbert Müller (1952) sought for ‘certainty of meaning’ in an analysis of the development of Western civilization. The only certainty he found was that the past has many uses. This chapter is concerned with some specific uses of the past: (1) how nation state rulers and bureaucrats have manipulated the past for nationalist purposes, both ideological and chauvinistic, and to legitimize their authority and power; (2) how nation states have used archaeological sites, artefacts, and theories for such purposes; (3) how these uses of the past relate to more general questions about the intellectual and socio-political contexts in which archaeology is conducted. The importance to the state of using or manipulating its past is neatly delineated in two great dystopian novels, George Orwell’s (1949) Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Aldous Huxley’s (1932) Brave New World. In the former, the Ministry of Truth totally revamps the past as needed to justify and lend ‘truth’ to the immediate requirements, actions, and policies of the state. In the latter, the past is blotted out. As the Resident World Controller for Western Europe, Mustafa Mond tells the Savage, ‘we haven’t any use for old things here’ (Huxley 1932: 200). In both cases, control and manipulation of the past or its complete denial is critical to state ideology and purposes.