The Historiography of Archaeology and Canon Greenwell

Tim Murray

doi:10.5334/bha.15203

Abstract

In this paper I will focus the bulk of my remarks on setting studies of Canon Greenwell in two broader contexts. The first of these comprises the general issues raised by research into the historiography of archaeology, which I will exemplify through reference to research and writing I have been doing on a new book A History of Prehistoric Archaeology in England, and a new single-volume history of archaeology Milestones in Archaeology, which is due to be completed this year. The second, somewhat narrower context, has to do with situating Greenwell within the discourse of mid-to-late 19th century race theory, an aspect of the history of archaeology that has yet to attract the attention it deserves from archaeologists and historians of anthropology (but see e.g. Morse 2005). Discussing both of these broader contexts will, I hope, help us address and answer questions about the value of the history of archaeology (and of research into the histories of archaeologists), and the links between these histories and a broader project of understanding the changing relationships between archaeology and its cognate disciplines such as anthropology and history.

Highlights

The Historiography of Archaeology and Canon GreenwellIn this paper I will focus the bulk of my remarks on setting studies of Canon Greenwell in two broader contexts
My comments about the historiography of archaeology are in part a reaction to developments that have occurred over the last decade within archaeology, but in larger part a consequence of my own interest in the field
Part of my goal in this all-too-brief discussion of just one aspect of the history of English prehistoric archaeology has been to support the case that the history of archaeology matters

Summary

The Historiography of Archaeology and Canon Greenwell

In this paper I will focus the bulk of my remarks on setting studies of Canon Greenwell in two broader contexts. Anthropology, geology and biology and physics have a far longer (and stronger) tradition in this area Such disciplines or fields have been significant contributors (either by way of methodology or examples) to the development of the history, philosophy and sociology of science, the perspectives of which will necessarily play an important role in the immediate future of the history of archaeology. The second reason for moving discussion away from methodological considerations, is that it provides an opportunity to consider some of the consequences that an upsurge in research into the history of archaeology might have for our cognate disciplines of anthropology and history. Both disciplines have strong historiographic traditions, but I think that it is a fair. More of all of this after the very brief and partial historiographical survey

Surveying the Historiography of Archaeology

Archaeology and Anthropology

The Context of British Barrows

Concluding Remarks