Archaeological Paradigms Research Articles

Does archaeology deliver evidence about the past or co-create contemporary values?

The paper focuses on heritage value systems, particularly investigating the archaeological understanding of heritage values and evaluation. The literature review shows that the postmodern archaeological paradigm predominantly covers the topic, while the perspective of the intrinsic value is less explored. The starting point of our research is the thesis that archaeological paradigms obstruct better public support if they refrain from using axiological considerations. By archaeological paradigm, we refer to the processual and post-processual ones (the latter focusing on understanding past social phenomena). Axiology, as the theory of values, developed in the second half of the 20th century. Its approach is now used in many areas of social sciences (for example, education and medical care). Public archaeology is more open to societal needs than processual and post-processual archaeology but has yet to apply a values-based approach consistently. To clarify our thesis, we analyse the theoretical and practical considerations on the values of (archaeological) heritage, including the issues of the categorization of values, reflection on who assigns values to heritage and how this affects the reception of archaeological knowledge in society. The paper addresses some critical aspects of the evaluation in archaeological heritage conservation, management and building alliances with locals and communities who identify with heritage. I outline a comprehensive archaeological evaluation system considering systemic, extrinsic and intrinsic archaeological values in the conclusions.

Negotiated Positivism: The disregarded epistemology of Arne Furumark

Archaeological theory during the twentieth century is often presented according to a tri-partite scheme. This article serves to put this model into question through the explication of the epistemology of the Swedish classical archaeologist Arne Furumark. He introduced a heuristic model for ceramic studies in 1941 that bears the hallmarks of logical positivism. This early appropriation of analytical philosophy in classical archaeology does not resonate with the above-mentioned model of archaeological theory. However, Furumark did not adopt the agenda of processual archaeology wholeheartedly as the greater part of his research was founded on a culture historical framework. Furumark’s epistemology was negotiated between two archaeological paradigms, or two branches of positivism.

24.0 kyr cal BP stone artefact from Vale da Pedra Furada, Piauí, Brazil: Techno-functional analysis.

Current archaeological paradigm proposes that the first peopling of the Americas does not exceed the Last Glacial Maximum period. In this context, the acceptance of the anthropogenic character of the earliest stone artefacts generally rests on the presence of projectile points considered no more as typocentric but as typognomonic, since it allows, by itself, to certify the human character of the other associated artefacts. In other words, without this presence, nothing is certain. Archaeological research at Piauí (Brazil) attests to a Pleistocene human presence between 41 and 14 cal kyr BP, without any record of lithic projectile points. Here, we report the discovery and interpretation of an unusual stone artefact in the Vale da Pedra Furada site, in a context dating back to 24 cal kyr BP. The knapping stigmata and macroscopic use-wear traces reveal a conception centred on the configuration of double bevels and the production in the same specimen of at least two successive artefacts with probably different functions. This piece unambiguously presents an anthropic character and reveals a technical novelty during the Pleistocene occupation of South America.

Is Big Digital Data Different? Towards a New Archaeological Paradigm

ABSTRACTArchaeological data is always incomplete, frequently unreliable, often replete with unknown unknowns, but we nevertheless make the best of what we have and use it to build our theories and extrapolations about past events. Is there any reason to think that digital data alter this already complicated relationship with archaeological data? How does the shift to an infinitely more flexible, fluid digital medium change the character of our data and our use of it? The introduction of Big Data is frequently said to herald a new epistemological paradigm, but what are the implications of this for archaeology? As we are increasingly subject to algorithmic agency, how can we best manage this new data regime? This paper seeks to unpick the nature of digital data and its use within a Big Data environment as a prerequisite to rational and appropriate digital data analysis in archaeology, and proposes a means towards developing a more reflexive, contextual approach to Big Data.

Lost and Found: Archaeological Fragments and Contemporary Art

From the second half of the 18th century on, with Neoclassicism and the beginning of modern art history, classical art started to be seen as part of an irretrievable past and at the same time as a utopian model for the art of the present and the future. A significant outcome of such a paradoxical vision of Antiquity at the dawn of modernity is the increasingly important role assumed by classical fragments in the works of artists from the end of the 18th through the end of the 20th century. Such fragments (in the art of Fussli, Rodin, de Chirico and Brancuși, for instance) on the one hand evoke the prestige of a past considered irremediably lost, on the other hand they stand as a sign for memory and hint at the relationship with a living, ever changing and continuously renegotiated tradition. In the 1960s and 1970s, after art reached a post-medium condition, one may wonder what could be the meaning of the many classical fragments to be found, for example, in Giulio Paolini’s or Jannis Kounellis’ works; or of the use of the archaeological paradigm (or parodies) in Robert Smithson’s works. Fragments of the classical past or archaeological evocations in advanced art of those years are not to be considered empty ‘quotations’ from an undifferentiated past, but they seem instead to suggest a conception of history based on a non-linear, dynamic sense of memory and time that, in this paper, will be connected with Walter Benjamin’s theses On the Concept of History, for example, or with George Kubler’s book The Shape of Time. The debris of the past in the art of the 1960s and 1970s, therefore, is not meant to produce a kind of renovated rovinismo, rather it poses questions as to how a relationship with tradition could still be maintained by art after Modernism.

Studium keramiky vrcholného a pozdního středověku v Čechách : témata, metody, přístupy

This contribution charts the sixty years of the systematic study of pottery of the high and late Middle Ages in Bohemia, and introduces the basic subjects and methods developed along with the progress of archaeology of the late Middle Ages. Medieval pottery involving the most widespread artefacts and various approaches to their study illustrate the development of Czech archaeology of the late Middle Ages influenced by contemporaneous archaeological paradigms, and initially also by ideological concepts associated with Marxist historiography. The history of the study of pottery of the high and late Middle Ages can be divided into five main areas: the antiquarian period and the beginnings of study; the typological phase; further development of the typological study focused on regional sequences of pottery, and the present, ongoing contextual phase with emphasis on a more comprehensive approach to the study and more profound socio-economic issues. A similar trend in the development of the study of medieval pottery can be observed in west-European countries. In the paper the development is also demonstrated on the basis of the critical assessment of studies dedicated to pottery of the high and late Middle Ages published in two leading specialist Czech periodicals, Archeologicke rozhledy and Archaeologia historica.

Evidence on Animals in the Middle Ages in the Framework of Culture-Historical Paradigm

The paper investigates the relationship between archaeological paradigm, fieldwork practice and archaeological records generated in Serbia after the World War II. The issue is the need to revalorize “old” archaeological records in the context of the current theoretical changes and of adaptation of the existing evidence to new research perspectives. These general issues are discussed on the example of culture-historical or traditional approach in Medieval archaeology in the Serbian context.
 From the point of view of postprocessual archaeology, the paradigmatic position entirely determines the evidence generated during excavations. Consequently, it may be expected that the excavations conducted under the culture-historical school of thought may only answer the questions posed from the culture-historical viewpoint. Therefore, the limitations are great of reinterpretation of the evidence generated in the culture-historical framework. Additionally, the problems of reinterpretation are raised by inaccessibility or non-existence of complete field documentation or unsatisfactory archiving. In other words, the data at our disposal are far removed from the complexity of archaeological record necessary for new insights and a better understanding of the past. The problem is further influenced by the specific character of archaeological knowledge and the issue of non-replicability that differs archaeology from other experimentally grounded research areas. Consequently, a string of problems raises in the process of reinterpretation of the “old” evidence, but it can still be treated as useful in interpretation, provided that it is adequately contextualized.
 The key points of the changed approach to archaeological research today may be defined as the overcoming of the notion of paradigm and the dualistic mode of thinking, with an emphasized importance of post-humanist philosophy and new materialism. One of the aspects of the post-humanist approach is the consideration of animals in archaeological record as companions to people of the past. This case-study considers specific issues of human-animal relations and “animal turn” on the grounds of the archaeological records interpreted as Mediaeval in the framework of the culture-historical paradigm. The new positioning of the “old” evidence stems from the theoretical tendencies linked to the “ontological turn” in social anthropology and archaeology, and the social epistemology of L. Fleck.

Technology Studies and Material Culture Studies: Possibilities of Cooperation in the Case of Bone Artefacts

Bone artefacts are among the less thoroughly studied classes of archaeological material, especially in the case of particular periods and regions. The reasons behind this are not uniform. The most obvious and general are linked to the research practices of culture-historical archaeology, often neglecting bone artefacts, considering them not sufficiently attractive or informative. The most significant shift towards recognition of a set of potential information gained from bone objects was achieved in the framework of studies of prehistoric technology during the second half of 20th century, especially in the French archaeological school. This research strategy raised a number of questions concerning the acquisition of raw material, modes of production and usage of objects, whose interpretative potential gained in power, leading to the increased attention paid to faunal remains in archaeological investigations. Yet this source of information on the actual details of relations between people and material culture, opened by technology studies, has not been sufficiently explored. It may be suggested that the reasons are the narrow specialization of researchers and insufficient inclusion of the gathered information into the wider interpretive framework, various traditions and lack of cooperation among the national archaeological “schools”, language barriers etc. However, the main reason behind this state of affairs may be sought for in non-integrated theoretical perspectives and the lack of clearly articulated interpretive position of researchers seeking to apply the knowledge gained from technology studies, considering this strategy as an “objective, scientific method”, providing concrete answers clearly complying to the expectations of the dominant archaeological paradigm.
 The paper offers a critical review of a number of examples of application of technology studies in archaeology and possible directions of a more integrated and theoretically informed approach. One of the obvious solutions may be sought in the direction of another research strategy – material culture studies. The aim of the paper is thus to link these two approaches, whose theoretical foundations are not uniform today, but the history of the ideas and the mode of articulation of the basic theoretical assumptions indicate similar theoretical roots.

El nuevo paradigma arqueológico-bíblico

After a classic heyday in first half of last century, archeology interested in research on Judeo-Christianity was profoundly transformed, talking, from different approaches, on a New Archaeology. The author calls “new archaeological paradigm”, figuratively, this set of both these new approaches and these striking archeological findings, which strongly challenge historicity of facts and important biblical figures, as well as very history of peoples who have inhabited for centuries Israeli-Palestinian land. The presentation of these findings strongly emphasizes what he calls the story behind story, historical existential experiences of people who developed textual stories and traditions of both First and Second Testament, trying specifically to explain what is at stake in accepting challenge of this archeology of new paradigm. In final part, author outlines some reflections, from perspective of science of religion, about deep and multiple rethinking that this new paradigm seems to invite.

ARKEOLOGI FORENSIK: PERKEMBANGAN DAN CAPAIANNYA DI INDONESIA

Forensic archeology is defined as the application of archaeological principles and techniques in medico-legal and/or humanity context related to buried evidence. Forensic archaeologist has two roles, as the expert who unearth buried objects systematically and reconstruct them. This paper discusses the role of archeology and archaeologists in the excavation of criminal, humanitarian and disaster victims. Archaeologist’s role to revealpaleoanthropological materials smuggled and theft is also discussed in this paper. Humanitarian missions to investigate mass grave of victims of war, political strife and genocide in the past and the present are other archaeologist’s role discussed in this paper. The existence, condition and development of forensic archaeology in Indonesia emphasize the significance of new paradigm in Indonesian archaeology. Forensic archeology not merely focusess on the study of cultural materials of the past, education and museum development, cultural resource management and its advocacy, but it also has role in medico-legal works. Forensic archaeologist also engages in disaster victim identification (DVI) that addresses issues related to victims buried by either natural or human disasters.Arkeologi forensik didefinisikan sebagai penerapan prinsip-prinsip dan teknik-teknik arkeologis dalam konteks medico-legal dan/atau dalam konteks kemanusiaan yang berkaitan dengan bukti-bukti terkubur. Ahli arkeologi forensik berperan sebagai ahli yang mampu menemukan benda-benda yang terkubur secara sistematis dan merekonstruksi apa yang mereka temukan itu. Makalah ini mendiskusikan peran arkeologi dan para arkeolog dalam ekskavasi korban-korban kriminal, kemanusiaan dan bencana. Makalah ini berusaha melihat apa yang telah mereka kerjakan meliputi pembuktian kasus-kasus penyelundupan dan pencurian material-materialpaleoantropologis, dan keterlibatan dalam misi-misi kemanusian untuk penyelidikan dan pengungkapan korban-korban kubur massal akibat perang, pertikaian politik dan genosida di masa lalu dan masa kini.Keberadaan, kondisi dan perkembangan arkeologi forensik di Indonesia menegaskan pentingnya pengembangan paradigma baru dalam arkeologi Indonesia. Arkeologi tidak semata berkonsentrasi pada kajian material-material budaya masa lalu, pendidikan dan pengembangan museum, manajemen dan advokasi sumberdaya budaya, namun juga berperan untuk pekerjaan medico-legal. Ahli arkeologi forensik bahkan terlibat dalam disaster victim identification (DVI) yang menangani masalah-masalah yang berkaitan dengan para korban yang terkubur oleh beragambencana baik yang diakibatkan oleh alam maupun manusia.

Archaeological Excursion into Proximal Colony

Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia-Herzegovina by the end of the 19th century, presided by Benjamin Kallay, the Empire’s Minister of Finance and governor of Bosnia and Herzegovina, strived to gain wider international justification for its years’ long project of “civilizing” Bosnia and Herzegovina, or particular “historizing” of this proximal colony. In the summer of 1894 the Austro-Hungarian government in Bosnia and Herzegovina organized the Congress of Archaeologists and Anthropologists in the Landesmuseum in Sarajevo. The aim of the Congress was to inform archaeologists and anthropologists about the results of archaeological investigations in the country, and to seek their advice in directing further work. The wider ideological, political, as well as theoretical context of this congress, however, was much more complex and layered, with the aim to present the constructed image of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a country of tamed and civilized European Orient of rich past and luxurious folklore. The participants of the Congress discussed the archaeological and anthropological data presented to them by the hosts, including the specially organized excavations at Butmir and Glasinac. It is interesting to analyze, from the point of view of the history of archaeological ideas, the endeavours of the participants to adapt the archaeological finds before them to the wishes of the hosts, and, on the other hand, to their favoured archaeological paradigms dominant at the time.

The Archaeological Symbol: Heredia’s Volcanic Pyramid and Mesoamerican Deep Time

The Archaeological Symbol:Heredia’s Volcanic Pyramid and Mesoamerican Deep Time Carlos Fonseca Suárez He who seeks to approach his own buried past must conduct himself like a man digging. —Walter Benjamin, Excavation and Memory The archaeological paradigm could be summarized as follows: knowledge happens the day after the catastrophe, as a search for erased origins. An article on the Mesoamerican archaeological imaginary could then very well begin by discussing the aftermath of an earthquake. The earthquake that struck Mexico City in the early morning of September 19, 1985, razing through the city’s modern landscape, fracturing the country’s modern spine, left the city exposed to the terrible logic of its archaic modernity. What the earthquake exposed was the end of that phenomenon of economic development that, from the 1940s until the 1980s, saw the entrance of Mexico into the landscape of the modern world, a socio-economic phenomenon that had been adequately called the “Mexican miracle.”1 The catastrophe exposed the fault lines of the project as such: in the fissures of the city’s architecture one found a concrete metaphor for the economic crisis [End Page 269] that had assaulted Mexico at the beginning of the decade. Nowhere was this unearthing clearer than in Tlatelolco. There, the shock waves brought to ruin the Nuevo León Building, part of the Unidad Habitacional Nonoalco-Tlatelco, the largest apartment complex in Mexico City, built in the 1960s by the architect Mario Pani, whose name had turned into a symbol of the Mexican miracle. Tlatelolco: the name stands for the violent cracks inherent within Mexico’s modernity. The social catastrophe that had been the 1968 massacre of Tlalelolco, where hundreds of student and civilian protesters were killed, was concretized by the earthquake’s disassembling force: the cracks in the Nuevo León Building were evidence that Mexico’s miracle was plagued with deficiencies and corruption. Soon, a discourse of civil society emerged, led by the voice of Carlos Monsivaís which soon found echoes in the more literary interventions of José Emilio Pachecho’s poem “Las ruinas de México” and Elena Poniatowska’s Nada, nadie. It would be in the aftermath of such discussions, as an aftershock of the catastrophe, that Guillermo Bonfil Batalla, an ethnologist and anthropologist whose work revolved around the question of the indigenous presence, would find the grounds upon which to base his concept of a “México profundo” in opposition to that of the “México imaginario.” The book, México profundo, was released in 1987, amidst the atmosphere of social unrest produced by the horrible earthquake, as a call—in the natural language of archaeology and geology—for a recognition of the deep indigenous strata of Mexico. Bonfil Batalla’s strategy was to bring back the concept of Mesoamerica: Let us start from a basic fact: one of the few original civilizations that humanity has created throughout all its history arose and developed in what today is México. This is Mesoamerican civilization, from which derives all that is “Indian” in México [ . . . ] Every schoolboy knows something about the precolonial world. The great archaeological monuments stand as national symbols [ . . . ] That renunciation, that denial of the past—does it really correspond to a total and irremediable historical break? Did Mesoamerica really die, and are the remaining Indian populations simply fossils, condemned five hundred years ago to disappear because they have no place in the present or in the future? (3) Bonfil Batalla’s argument against the fossilization of Mesoamerica, against its petrifaction in national museums, spirals around itself only to end up reifying the concept it wishes to place in question: the “Mesoamerican Mexico” can only be thought of under an archaeological discourse of depth and fossils, of monuments and digging, of origins. As I will soon attempt to show, this is no coincidence, but [End Page 270] rather accords with the logic of catastrophe and reconstruction, of catastrophe and excavation—namely, the archaeological paradigm of history—that surrounds the nineteenth-century discourse of ruins in Mexico. The “México profundo” that emerges amidst the ruins of the 1985 earthquake is the Mexico whose archaeological modernity must be found in dialogue with the...

Animals between Nature and Culture: The Story of Archaeozoology

The paper aims to tell the story of archaeozoology and utilize it to point out changes in the perception of nature and culture, the perception of animals as organisms that belong entirely to the domain of nature (unlike people who ‘build’ culture onto their nature), as well as display how these perceptions shaped the discipline of archaeozoology and influenced its position within archaeology. Animal remains, almost as a rule, represent some of the most common findings at archaeological sites; however, the attention which has been given to them in archaeological analysis and interpretation was largely dependent on the dominant paradigms in science. With the appearance of the ‘new’ or processual paradigm in archaeology and the concurrent development of archaeozoology, findings like these became the object of study and an important ‘key’ for understanding questions of sustenance, economy and strategies of survival in the past. The strict divide between the natural sciences and humanities (which is a consequence of the wider modernist narrative about the dichotomy of nature and culture), meant that only specialized experts could study animal remains, and that animal remains should be viewed, studied and published on separately from studies on architecture, sculptures and figurines, tools and other artifacts. Thus, archaeozoological reports long represented merely a kind of ‘addition’ to archaeological publications and rarely figured significantly in interpretations. With the paradigm shift brought on by post-processual archaeology, the research focus shifted from economic and functionalist explanations of social phenomena to the study of the influence of culture on shaping human behavior and values. Social theories of cultural constructivism indicate that concepts of ‘humanity’ and ‘animality’ are culturally shaped and a product of discourse, but they often ignore osteological analyses of human and animal remains in the process. Even though at first glance it may seem that constructivist studies and the positivist scientific method on which osteology is based are mutually exclusive in contemporary archaeology, their integration can provide a more detailed picture of how animals shape the way in which humans experience the world, of meanings ascribed to animals, as well as of the very nature of boundaries between people and animals in different cultural contexts.

Art for Plants' Sake? Questioning Human Imperialism in the Age of Biotech

We are only beginning to understand what it means to be a plant. Florianne Koechlin, ‘The Dignity of an Oak Leaf’1 The enemy of Empire is within. Tiqqun, Introduction to Civil War 2 Accepting the p...

On the Trail of the Lonesome Pine: Archaeological Paradigms and the Chaco “Tree of Life“

AbstractThe great houses of Chaco Canyon (ca. A.D. 850–1150) are widely assumed to represent cosmological meaning through the orientation of walls and other features to celestial events. Archaeological models of such relationships are considered cosmographic. A prominent feature of these models is a lone pine tree at Pueblo Bonito that has been interpreted as a “tree of life” symbolically connecting the physical and heavenly worlds. This study suggests that this interpretation is inconsistent with contextual data and should be dismissed. Future cosmographic research in Chaco should endeavor to develop methods of independent verification that will strengthen inferences about cosmological symbolism in architecture.

The Minoan ‘Palace-Temple’ Reconsidered

Although aspects of Arthur Evans’s vision of Minoan society have undergone modification during the course of the 20th century, his basic interpretation of the monumental building complex with courts at Knossos as a Palace-Temple, or the residence of both a political and religious authority, remains the dominant paradigm in Minoan archaeology. When set within the context of other contemporary Bronze Age societies in the eastern Mediterranean, however, Evans’s model of a priest-king who resided in a Palace Temple is actually highly unusual and anomalous. Indeed, it will be argued that the Palace-Temple model was invented by Evans as a distinctive, formative and intermediate stage between the Oriental Temple, which was the model then current in the Near East at the time of his writing, and what might be termed European kingship. The perception that Cretan culture and society was essentially European (and thus different from the East) formed a cornerstone of Evans’s vision and its enduring popularity goes some way to explaining why the intellectual and empirical origins of Evans’s Palace-Temple model have not previously been critically reassessed.

The Minoan ‘Palace-Temple’ Reconsidered: A Critical Assessment of the Spatial Concentration of Political, Religious and Economic Power in Bronze Age Crete

Although aspects of Arthur Evans’s vision of Minoan society have undergone modification during the course of the 20th century, his basic interpretation of the monumental building complex with courts at Knossos as a Palace-Temple, or the residence of both a political and religious authority, remains the dominant paradigm in Minoan archaeology. When set within the context of other contemporary Bronze Age societies in the eastern Mediterranean, however, Evans’s model of a priest-king who resided in a Palace Temple is actually highly unusual and anomalous. Indeed, it will be argued that the Palace-Temple model was invented by Evans as a distinctive, formative and intermediate stage between the Oriental Temple, which was the model then current in the Near East at the time of his writing, and what might be termed European kingship. The perception that Cretan culture and society was essentially European (and thus different from the East) formed a cornerstone of Evans’s vision and its enduring popularity goes some way to explaining why the intellectual and empirical origins of Evans’s Palace-Temple model have not previously been critically reassessed.

Doomsday Fieldwork, or, How to Rescue Gaelic Culture? The Salvage Paradigm in Geography, Archaeology, and Folklore, 1955 – 62

Amid a resurgence of interest in histories of scientific fieldwork and in the geographies of the Cold War, this paper presents a comparative history of field practice across the distinct epistemic traditions of geography, archaeology, and folklore. The paper follows the intellectual practices of three research teams attempting to ‘rescue’ Gaelic culture from the development of a missile-testing station in the Scottish Hebrides. The aims of the paper are fivefold: to extend insights from the histories of scientific fieldwork to understand the production of social knowledge, to consider the coconstitution of fieldwork and the region, to expand recent histories of geography in the mid-20th century, to draw out the lingering significance of the ‘salvage paradigm’ in geography and other social sciences, and to reconceptualise this salvage fieldwork as a way of constructing social life as much as rescuing it.

"Man came here by an intolerable way": Charles Olson's Archaeology of Resistance

"Man came here by an intolerable way":Charles Olson's Archaeology of Resistance Sasha Colby (bio) Charles Olson's reputation as an "archaeologist" has been well noted and largely accepted, primarily through the poet's own insistence that archaeological processes are the best way of understanding his poetic role. Uncomfortable with the label of "writer," Olson coined himself an "archaeologist of morning," (Collected Prose 206) finding within the aesthetics of excavation the most direct expression of an archaic imperative: Man needs to "'get back,' in order to 'get on'" (Charles Olson Reader 80). Certainly the archaeological provides a vivid illustration for many of Olson's projects: the retrieval of an original language, a return to a familiarization with nature, and the recuperation of archaic vision, the "Beautiful Thing" (Collected Prose 207). So an archaeological understanding, too, provides the possibility of viewing Olson's poetics as part of a visceral praxis, and in this light his months excavating in the Yucatan become less an eccentric whim and more broadly a part of a thoughtful existential campaign. Yet the pervasiveness of the archaeological in Olson's work and work about him has naturalized the metaphor to the point that it seems an unavoidable part of Olson's poesis. It is easy to forget that Olson deliberately pursued the role of archaeologist or that the presence of archaeology within his work can itself be excavated. Yet this excavation is worthwhile because Olson's archaeological practice encodes a driving existential and social desire. While Olson's poetry is sometimes perceived as obtuse and hermetic, his archaeology is often radical, resistant and political. It exists as a form of active protest and as a distinct call for social revisionism. From [End Page 93] its ideological underpinnings to its formal presence on the page, as well as its departure from what we might call the archaeological tradition, we can begin to understand how Olson's archaeological enterprise represents a "digging in" as much as a digging down, a trenchant appeal for the return to a humanized ethic that opposes the machinery of a dehumanized and dehumanizing modernity. Perhaps archaeology's greatest attraction, for Olson, is its relationship to objects and their human contexts. As many have observed, Olson's philosophical stance very much resembles Heidegger's in that a return to a connection with objects restores a balanced sense of being in the world.1 This position takes on special meaning within an archaeological paradigm, where contact with ancient objects (artifacts) facilitates a reconnection with the past itself—a rehabilitation that Olson perceives as essential to moving forward. Archaeology is therefore the vehicle for imagination as the objects it unearths reveal a potential future as well as a human past. This leap is occasioned by the material specificity of archaeological finds, the very presence of which summon up the phantasmagoric specter of an ancient past that might yet be projected forward. It is in these senses—the particular, the concrete, and the localized—that archaeology operates in opposition to Olson's understanding of history. Where archaeology relies on the material and provides the possibility for a paradoxical chronology, history supplies abstract knowledge of the past and an inevitable teleology. It is on these grounds, the abstractions of historical "discourse" as well as the egotism of constant progress, that Olson negates history. As Olson wrote to Robert Creeley while excavating Mayan fragments in Mexico: "there is no 'history.' (I still keep going back to, the notion, this is (we are) merely, the second time (that's as much history as I'll permit in, which ain't history at all" (Mayan Letters 69). For Olson, etymological change, like time, has perverted an original meaning, making "history," at once less specific and more socially corrosive: Obviously the word "history" is a word—unless you take it to root—which doesn't have any use at all. And the root is the original first use of it, in the first chapter if not the first paragraph of Herodotus, in which he says, "I'm using this as a verb 'istorin, which means to find out for yourself; and this is why I've [End Page 94] been all over...

Fun with Dick and Jane: Ethnoarchaeology, Circumpolar Toolkits, and Gender "Inequality"

Recent comparative ethnoarchaeological study of hunter-fisher and hunter-fisher-herder societies in the circumpolar world reveals interesting variation in the proportions of women's, men's and joint gear comprising toolkits employed in harvesting, processing, storage and distribution of major subsistence resources. In sheer numbers, women's tools and facilities overshadow those implements conventionally used by men and those used jointly by both sexes. Women's gear is often concentrated spatially within encampments and settlements, those areas with potentially greater accessibility and visibility for archaeologists. Moreover, women participate directly in the dispatch and processing of smaller animals, but as prey size increases women devote more time to the indispensable butchering, processing, storage and food distribution phases of hunting. These dynamics raise intriguing issues regarding the nature of the sexual division of labor and sexual inequality. Traditional archaeological paradigms have frequently privileged the hunting prowess and sociopolitical power of men while remaining virtually silent on women and women's roles in hunting. Data from a cross-cultural ethnoarchaeological study of Chipewyan, Khanty, Sámi and Iñupiaq communities offer insights for reassessing and recasting the social relations of production and gender in hunter-forager society.