A ‘Reflexive’ Multi-Stage Survey Methodology for Historical Landscape Research in Central India:Field-Walking, Local Knowledge, and Satellite Imagery as Archaeological Site Prospection and Mapping Tools in the Sanchi Survey Project

Shaw, Jonathan

doi:10.18520/cs/v113/i10/1918-1933

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In all other cases we again have to infer them. Given the heritage and tradition of survey methods in South Asia, it is fairly safe to assume that most, if not all, previous surveys in this area have used some form of informant-based survey-what, in South Asia, is usually referred to as "village-to-village" survey (see Shaw 2017). Here, working on the principle that modern villages are located every two or three kilometers across the landscape, and that the residents of these villages are more attuned to the existence Fig.…”

Section: Aims Methods and Modes Of Examinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Back to basics: returning to the evidence and mapping knowledge in south Asian archaeology

Hawkes

Casile

2020

asian archaeol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we advocate a return to the consideration and examination of the basic building blocks of archaeological enquiry: the evidence. Reacting to a widely held perception that archaeology now understands various commonalities of human experience, we suggest that such concepts and the inevitable oscillation towards "big picture" approaches that stems from them are problematic. They engender a type of scholarship that does not always engage fully with the evidentiary bases of interpretation and that risks assuming a great deal about large parts of the world that have not been studied in as much detail as others. We explore this by looking at the South Asian context, where archaeologists are forced to contend with a number of constraints, chief among which is a relative absence of archaeological evidence. Focusing on one particular sub-region, we piece together exactly what evidence exists and consider what can (and cannot) be said from it. On one level this serves as a useful comparator for those working in other parts of the world who may not appreciate the evidentiary constraints that exist elsewhere. Yet beyond this and simple questions of analogy, we suggest that detailed consideration of an area such as the one presented here forces us to return to even more fundamental questions relating to when archaeological research becomes "interesting", "ground-breaking", and "new"; and who decides this.

show abstract

Section: Aims Methods and Modes Of Examinationmentioning

confidence: 99%