Abstract
This paper presents a critical reflection on time in the field of the history of archaeology. For historians of archaeology, the analysis of time is frequently assimilated into the examination of different ‘chronologies’ and the presentation of the development of dating techniques. However, this article argues that it is possible to conceptualise time as an historical concept which has been defined by shape , function , context and some a priori ideas . This paper discusses some of the key notions through which archaeologists conceptualised time in the second half of the 19 th century. These ideas are essential in allowing us to understand not only the later development of the discipline, but also our interpretation of the past in general.
Highlights
This paper presents a critical reflection on time in the field of the history of archaeology
Even the work of McTaggart (1927), who tried to show that time is not a real quality of the universe, was influenced by this dichotomy. Starting with this dichotomy, which “must be dissolved in order to progress with the development of an understanding of time” (Gardner 2001: 36), it is obvious that one of the problems in the social sciences up until at least the 1950s has been the reduction of both dimensions into only one, that of objective and chronological time
As a critique of the dominance of descriptive works in the history of archaeology, this paper has argued for a comparative analysis of chronologies, as developed by Lartet, de Mortillet and Piette, to arrive at a more lucid understanding of their respective meanings, functions and contexts
Summary
Grupo de Prehistoria, Departamento de Ciencias Históricas, Universidad de Cantabria, Spain. As a critique of the dominance of descriptive works in the history of archaeology, this paper has argued for a comparative analysis of chronologies, as developed by Lartet, de Mortillet and Piette, to arrive at a more lucid understanding of their respective meanings, functions and contexts On another level, this paper has attempted to establish the concept of time which preceded and determined the chronologies discussed; particular attention was paid to transformism, the theory most important to biology and palaeontology in the second half of the 19th century in France. On the basis of results obtained from an in-depth study of the concept of time in French prehistoric archaeology in the second half of the 19th century, this paper has aimed to demonstrate the importance of analysing time, where and when possible, as a historically contingent concept These discussions relate to one of the most important problems affecting archaeology as a discipline today, that is the breakdown between the history of archaeology and its practice. It has been the objective here to demonstrate that a holistic understanding of several categories commonly utilised in archaeology today, such as the ‘Magdalenian Period’, for example, can only be achieved by way of criticalhistorical study
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
