In Pursuit of Ancient Pasts: a History of Classical Archaeology in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, by Stephen L. Dyson, 2006. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press; ISBN-13 978-0-300-11097-5 hardback £30 & US$45; xv+316 pp., 40 ills (original) (raw)

with James Whitley An Age of Experiment: Classical Archaeology Transformed (1976-2014)

What is Classical Archaeology’s place within the overall study of antiquity and the history of humanity? And what is its relationship to its kindred disciplines of ancient history, art history and Mediterranean prehistory? Forty or so years ago Classical Archaeology appeared to be a very conservative and rather niche area of scholarly endeavour. Then both prehistorians and ancient historians might have answered that Classical Archaeology had little to offer their respective fields of study. Since the late 1970s, however, the subject has been transformed, a transformation in which the example of Anthony Snodgrass has played a significant role. This volume brings together the work of Snodgrass’s former students; scholars who, while they could be variously classified as prehistorians, ancient historians, Classical archaeologists, Classical art historians, Classicists and modern historians, are internationally recognised scholars in their respective fields. Each contribution brings a unique perspective to bear on the current state of Classical archaeology and its place in not only Mediterranean but global history, art history and archaeology

The Oxford Handbook of the History of Archaeology

The Oxford Handbook of the History of Archaeology, 2024

Díaz-Andreu, Margarita and Coltofean, Laura, eds. (2024) The Oxford Handbook of the History of Archaeology. Oxford, Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780190092504. DESCRIPTION. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Archaeology offers comprehensive perspectives on the origins and developments of the discipline of archaeology and the direction of future advances in the field. Written by thirty-six archaeologists, historians, and historians of science from all over the world, it covers a wide range of themes, including major debates, scientific techniques, and archaeological fieldwork practices. Chapters in this handbook also discuss the effect of institutional contexts on the development of archaeology, including legislative parameters and the nature of the work that takes place in museums, universities, and the management of archaeology. Other themes include the cultural and political backdrop that has affected archaeological research, from religion to nationalism and colonialism, and the social history of archaeology, with a focus on women, amateur archaeology, economics, and tourism | ~~| TABLE OF CONTENTS | Contributors | 1. Introduction: Towards a Multifaceted History of Archaeology | Margarita Díaz- Andreu and Laura Coltofean p1 |~| PART I. METHODOLOGY AND THEORY | 2. Writing the History of Archaeology: A Historical Overview | Margarita Díaz- Andreu p21 | 3. Archives, Oral History, and Histories of Archaeology | Ola Wolfhechel Jensen | p48 | 4. Photo Archives and the History of Archaeology | Lucila Mallart p72 | 5. Biographical Research in the History of Archaeology | Laura Coltofean p98 | 6. “Genius,” “Precursors,” and “Great (White) Men” in the History of Archaeology | Oscar Moro Abadía, Emma Lewis-Sing p121 |~| PART II. ARCHAEOLOGY AND ITS PRACTICES | 7. From Deep Holes to the Bigger Picture: A History of Methods in Archaeological Excavation | Gisela Eberhardt p143 | 8. Stratigraphy in the history of archaeology | Massimo Tarantini p165 | 9. Epistemic Practices and Blurred Boundaries: Human Remains in the History of Archaeology | Nélia Dias p193 | 10. A History of Interdisciplinarity in Archaeology: The Three Science Revolutions, Their Implementation and Impact | Kristian Kristiansen p218 | 11. The history of archaeology’s interaction with the hard sciences | Géraldine Delley p238 |~| PART III. OBJECTS, NETWORKS, AND MUSEUMS | 12. Collecting Antiquities in the Nineteenth Century | Miruna Achim p263 | 13. Museums of Archaeology: Museums with Archaeology | Ana Cristina Martins | p286 | 14. Objects in Transit: On the Theory and Practices of Archaeological Collecting | Fedra Pizzato p307 | 15. Artifact Distribution: Networks in the History of Archaeology | Alice Stevenson p325 | 16. Fakes in the history of archaeology | Irina Podgorny p346|~| PART IV. DIVERSE ARCHAEOLOGIES | 17. The History of Gender Archaeology | Margarita Díaz-Andreu, Rachel Pope p371 | 18. A history of historical archaeology | Charles Orser p402 | 19. The history of conflict archaeology | Sophie M. McMillan, Tony Pollard p424 | 20. The history of public archaeology | Gabriel Moshenska p445 | 21. The history of commercial archaeology: The United Kingdom and the United States | Kenneth Aitchison p466 | 22. The history of commercial archaeology: Europe and Beyond | Kenneth Aitchison p466 |~| PART V. INSTITUTIONS AND LEGISLATION | 23. The history of international foreign archaeological schools | Frederick Whitling | p531 | 24. The history of international archaeological congresses | Ulrike Sommer p558 | 25. The development of archaeology in school curricula | Michael Corbishley p581 | 26. The history of archaeological legislation | John Carman p617 | 27. The history of the fight against the antiquities trade | Francesca de Tomasi p637 |~| PART VI. IDEOLOGIES AND THE POLITICAL CONTEXT OF ARCHAEOLOGY | 28. Sacred Archaeology in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Century | Bonnie Effros | p663 | | 29. Archaeology, Nationalism, Imperialism, Colonialism, and the Postcolonial Turn | Margarita Díaz-Andreu p682 | 30. Archaeology and Orientalism | Suzanne Marchand p715 | 31. Race, Racialism, and Racism in European Archaeology, 1800–1960 | Fabian Link p736 | 32. The Political Ecology of Archaeology under Communism | Ludomir Lozny p757 |~| PART VII. ARCHAEOLOGY AND SOCIETY | 33. From Stunning Solitaires to Creative Clusters: Women from Antiquarianism to Archaeology | Elisabeth Arwill-Nordbladh p785 | 34. Amateur Archaeology in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries| Nathalie Richard p810 | 35. Violence, Armies, and Archaeological Research from the Nineteenth to the Twenty-First Century | Francisco Gracia Alonso p829 | 36. Archaeology as Leisure: A History of Archaeological Tourism | Margarita Díaz-Andreu p857 | 37. The History of the Influence of Free Market Economics on Archaeology | Peter Tomlinson p890 | 38 Community Approaches to Archaeology, Heritage, and Museums: A Historical Perspective | Veysel Apaydin p909 | Index | https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-history-of-archaeology-9780190092504?cc=us&lang=en&#

On the Past and Contemporary Character of Classical Archaeology

chapter in book in English, 2011

The paper considers classical archaeology as one of the first and oldest branches of archaeology practised in Europe taking into account the fact that interest in the relics of ancient civilisations is deeply inscribed in the self-identification of various peoples of Europe, in the grounds of their cultural identity. A wider problem concerning the 'living antiquity’ observed in the history of Europe is mentioned as well, and the causes of such vitality which is the reason why we spoke and most often still speak of the Greco-Roman foundations of European civilisation, albeit some argue that such an approach to Antiquity has already declined. It is a known fact that the splendour of Greece shone also on the ancient Roman world but it seems that it happened not only by way of appropriation of cultural achievements. Despite the difficult Roman-Greek relationship and exploitative Roman attitude to the Greek cultural heritage, to some extent cultural exchange took place on the basis of reciprocity. What's more, it is ultimately through the mediation of the Romans that the Hellenic culture flourished on various areas of their huge empire and was thus passed to subsequent periods of history. You could say that already in antiquity the first synthesis of complex achievements of the ancient culture took place on a great scale. It would then influence the medieval and Renaissance Europe, and from modern times each epoch would create its own model of antiquity and make further interpretations and syntheses of its sophisticated achievements. We are therefore entitled to state that the classic legacy is a common past of the whole Europe (thus classical archaeology is all European countries’ own archaeology), regardless of the extent to which the prehistory also creates the past, and to what extent it is formed by archaeologies of the regions and peoples, who in vast majority lived outside the classical world. Therefore, classical archaeology held an exceptionally privileged position for a long time (which is not the case nowadays, when all disciplines are treated equally and research assume a pluralistic approach), because, to some extent, similar to classical studies, it not only dealt with exploring the ancient past, but was to read the values developed in the ancient world and communicate them to next generations. Moreover, these values were drawn from the concept of 'Hellenism', developed already in the eighteenth century, continued in nineteenth, which idealised this unique, classic Greek past which was believed to have been the almost exclusive roots of 'Europeanism'. However, there are two factors that seem to be the main reasons of the independent development of classical archaeology in relation to other branches of archaeology and of its specific character. On the one hand, it is a huge amount of ancient works of art, as well as iconographic representations, temples and other buildings, which preserved to modern times. This legacy - or rather its magnitude and aesthetic qualities – contributed to focusing on the study of art and architecture in classical archaeology, and at the same time lack of interest and underestimation of all other relics of ancient material culture. On the other hand, a huge number of ancient written sources, including primarily the numerous inscriptions, set classical archaeology in a privileged position in relation to archaeology of prehistoric societies. Written sources, always regarded as more important than material remains, only 'illustrating' the former, were almost uncritically considered for a long time a 'real' insight into the ancient world. In the next part of the paper the problem of a very complex relations of classical archaeology and art history, is thoroughly discussed by the author. To conclude the author underlie the fact that archaeology, as well as other disciplines, attempts to preserve a character of a sovereign discipline with a precise research field. It is directed towards specific phenomena of the past cultural and social life, examined primarily through available material remains. However, by opening up more and more for collaboration with other disciplines, it also gets rid of its limitations and total dependence on one controlling humanistic discipline, which is important for classical archaeology regarding its strong connections with classical philology and art history. Nevertheless, she would say that this should not mean distancing itself and giving up this huge and great tradition - on the contrary, it should be rethought and included again in today's research. The authority of science lies in its achievements, jointly produced by scholars, namely the tradition, which is also subject to continuous development and change. The authority of a well-understood tradition does not stand in opposition to the freedom of undertaking new research. In case of archaeology, as one of the disciplines studying the past, we must realise that all questions about the past are asked from the position of the present, therefore, these are questions not only about the past itself, but also about contemporary people, thinking about the past from a particular cultural perspective. The way of thinking about the past is thus in this case a form of communicating the researchers’ own choices of values and thus an informed and open to others form of participating in a culture in which they are positioned. Ewa Bugaj reiterates the opinion stated already at the beginning of the text that our era, like the previous ones, creates its own model of antiquity and makes its own interpretations of its numerous achievements. We should hope that classical archaeology will show an inspiring role of antiquity in our times, as it functions with full knowledge that preserved texts, ideas, representations, as well as material culture of ancient Greece and Rome, for a very long time remained key for the Western world in the process of adaptation of the past in order to authenticate the present. Modern scholars, however, must take into consideration both the recognized use and abuse of the past. Hence, today's classical archaeology significantly broadens its field of research trying to describe the 'social life', the roles and importance of ancient material culture in the contemporary socio-cultural context. In so doing, it takes into account the reflections on the concept of the social agency of things, the strength of their impact, not only knowledge of them, recorded in the social memory. It also considers the influence of ancient artefacts on the senses of the recipient, with all their properties, such as visibility and tangibility, which gives them the ability of ongoing production and materialisation of time and place, of embodying the past.

Breaking the "great curse of archaeology". Editorial preface

The journal is open to international research submitted by individual scholars as well as by interdisciplinary teams, and especially wishes to promote work by junior researchers and new and innovative projects. Challenging research themes can be explored in dedicated issues, and theoretical approaches are welcomed. Book reviews and review articles further screen the pulse of the field.

Archaeological Theory within Classical Archaeology

This is a brief survey on the subject of theoretical publications within Classical Archaeology that I hope to expand into a full publication at a later date. This paper primarily looks at the connection between the reputation of Classical Archaeology as being antiquated and outdated with current trends and theoretical publications. Is the theoretical framework within Classical Archaeology still considered outdated? Or are new questions being answered?

Archaeology and Ancient History : Breaking down the Boundaries

Sauer, E.W. (ed.), 2004, with contributions by Dialismas, A., Foxhall, L., Henig, M., Hoffmann, B., Karl, R., Laurence, R., Morgan, J., Murphy, E., Rankov, B. and Sauer, E.W., Archaeology and Ancient History: breaking down the boundaries. London and New York: Routledge, pp. xi + 206.