Nationalism, Local Histories and the Making of Data in Archaeology

Abstract

The last twenty years have witnessed animated debates in archaeology about the influence of context on the production of archaeological knowledge. This article argues that social and historical context affects archaeology not only at the level of interpretation but also at that of basic practice. I illustrate this claim about the historical nature of data through a comparison of two Palaeolithic central European sites, Willendorf and Dolní V stonice, examining the way in which particularities of each context affected the collection, analysis, and subsequent circulation of their lithic collections in regional reconstructions. Beyond a concern for more overt ideological forms of nationalism, I conclude that we need to pay greater attention to the local histories of archaeology, and their influence in transforming facts into data.

Citizen Science in Archaeology

“…Standardized compilations are difficult to achieve even when participants are working together within a single team (Hawkins et al 2003), and even when all of the participants are trained professionals (e.g., Sullivan and Schiffer 1978 on SARG). Professional archaeologists tend to rely on the idiosyncracies of their own training when engaged in basic tasks such as sorting ceramics, separating "debitage" from flakes, or delineating primary from secondary deposits although these initial activities have significant implications for interpretation (e.g., Adams and Adams 1991;Tomaskova 2003). The necessary standardization of data collection for citizen science provides a moment of philosophical introspection by compelling archaeologists to articulate distinctions instead of relying on a "gestalt" approach to classification.…”

The future of archaeology in Africa

“…The main crisis in African archaeology is the perception among its practitioners that it is just a ‘science’ of investigating the past, with no bearing on the present. A good example is Stone Age archaeology, where, although considerable research is in progress, the discipline remains largely unaffected by contemporary politics, giving its practitioners a comfort zone and a sense of moral or ethical victory over Iron Age archaeologists, who have to confront the current political environment (see Tomaskova 2003: 484). Publications in scientific journals alone are not sufficient; they need to be complemented by other methods to convey the results and relevance of archaeology to a wider public.…”

Understanding Middle Horizon Peru: Hermeneutic Spirals, Interpretative Traditions, and Wari Administrative Centers

“…I argue that interpretative traditions in archaeology limit hermeneutic spin-offs in at least three ways. 2 First, interpretative traditions have a significant degree of inertia because scholars, politicians, and readers become increasingly invested in particular interpretations of the past (e.g., Arnold 1990;Kohl and P6rez Gollan 2002;Kuklick 1991;Tomaskova 2003;Van Reybrouck 2002). Second, the academic pathways to professional archaeology require students to read articles by and do fieldwork with archaeologists who follow particular interpretative traditions (Embree 1989:63-68;Meltzer 1989:11-12).…”