European Archaeology Research Articles

Do we need the ‘archaeology of Europe’?

AbstractIs there anything coherently ‘European’ about a European archaeology – or rather, about the ‘archaeology of Europe’ – or is it simply a modern political construct with no meaning in the ancient past? This paper analyses European archaeology through a historical perspective, tracing developments in the areas of archaeological conservation (heritage), thinking (theory/interpretations) and publication and teaching. It critically examines a perceived trend in archaeology from a national towards a European framework, and concludes instead that local and regional frameworks have become stronger in all three areas. To move forward, we should use our understanding of the relationship between ideology, politics and archaeology to promote a research agenda that actively contributes to the formation of critical knowledge about the conditions for heritage and research in contemporary society. There is scope for an archaeology that addresses fundamental historical problems and long-term histories of the various geographically and culturally interlinked regions of Europe.

Does the ‘archaeology of Europe’ exist? An archaeological dialogue

Following its successful first international face-to-face debate at the 2006 meeting of the SAA in Puerto Rico, Archaeological dialogues has again organized a conference discussion. This time we chose the Old World to invite our readership and a wider audience, congregating at the 13th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Zadar, Croatia. On 21 September 2007 we held a Round Table session, sponsored by Archaeological dialogues and Cambridge University Press, which asked, somewhat provocatively, ‘Does the “archaeology of Europe” exist?’ Kristian Kristiansen presented a position paper on the topic, followed by responses from Old World and New World commentators Predrag Novaković, Elisabeth Jerem and Phil Kohl. This issue now presents their thoughts on this question, together with a number of comments that arose from the very lively debate at the Round Table session.

Can the ‘archaeology of Europe’ survive postprocessual euroscepticism?

In the title of his paper Professor Kristiansen poses a question that turns out to be affirmatively rhetorical. One could surely be forgiven for reading the title and thinking that this eminent European and europeanist prehistorian had lobbed his own grenade of doubt into a discipline which, despite occasional protestations, has long assumed Europe to be a real place, a legitimate geographical context. In truth, it is not really a surprise that Professor Kristiansen asserts that we need to be more European, not less, in our thinking, but what is a surprise (to me, anyway) is the pathway he lays down towards that conclusion. His observations about the relationship between heritage/conservation issues on the one hand, and the shift from positivism to postprocessualism in archaeological theory on the other, are certainly thought-provoking, as are the results of his survey of linguistic and citation trends in recent archaeological literature, but have they a natural home in this particular argument? If yes, is his argument in favour of a greater ‘European-ness’ of enquiry the natural outcome of invoking them?

How are we Europeans? At the crossroads of discourse and practice

At the Round Table discussion in Zadar different understandings of what the phrase ‘a European archaeology/an archaeology of Europe’ stands for were brought to the table, so to speak. Several nuances may be discerned, and within these there were differences that could lead to substantially different claims. The proposition may thus refer to the question of whether a European archaeology as a distinct practice of interpretation (and presentation) exists – in essence this is an epistemological question: do we think and argue in a distinctly European way? The phrase was simultaneously used to refer to whether there is an archaeology of Europe solely based on it being a geographical region; Philip Kohl's response to the precirculated paper by Kristian Kristiansen was largely concerned with the legitimacy of this claim. Finally, another important point of departure was whether the claim was seen to refer to coherence in terms of prehistoric cultures, i.e. is the ‘European’ in our work a direct response to characteristics and qualities of the past that we study? Surely these understandings overlap and fuse but it is nonetheless important to appreciate that the proposition under debate may be understood to refer to different matters.

European heritage. A view from the periphery

In this stimulating piece Kristiansen provides a trenchant critique of the provincialism of much European archaeology (though he tends to concentrate his argument on prehistory), but he does not really engage with the question of whether we need an archaeology of Europe until his closing paragraphs. Here his answer is that ‘Europe and its regions [are] a far better and less exclusive frame of reference than the dominant local and national framework’ (p. NN) – i.e. we need an archaeology of Europe not to exclude others but in order to transcend narrow provincialism. Like Kristiansen, I too would like to put off engaging with the question, and start by examining his argument.

There is no archaeology but European archaeology . . .

To start with, I would like to emphasize that I very much agree with most points of Kristian Kristiansen's analysis of the European state of archaeology. In my view he is totally right in observing a turn from the global perspective to a national and local focus, expressed not least by narrowing language capabilities and restricted citation networks, both convincingly described in his paper. Furthermore he is right, I think, that archaeology has lost importance in the academic field due to its general avoidance of the grand questions, while at the same time the reviving myths of origin and heritage have prompted an unseen public interest in archaeology on the local level.

European archaeology. An inclusive or exclusive discipline?

Let me begin with an anecdote: in summer 1985 Karl Lamberg-Karlovsky and I participated in Bronze Age excavations at the site of Sarazm along the middle Zeravshan river in what was then Soviet Tajikistan. I remember one of the Russian artists on the dig complaining ruefully (and patronizingly) about her Tajik colleagues. ‘When will they [that is, her Tajik colleagues] ever become like us Russians and Americans, you know, Europeans?’ Karl, who is very proud of his mixed Czech, Slovak, and Austrian heritage, snorted disdainfully: ‘Since when have Americans and Russians ever been European?’

Beyond the pendulum model in rethinking the archaeology of Europe

In his review of recent trends in archaeology, Kristiansen argues that the changes in broad trends in cultural heritage management parallel profound changes in archaeological theory under the banner of postprocessualism. He also argues that one can conceptualize these changes through a pendulum model that swings between rationalism and romanticism, the former favouring generalized interpretations, the latter favouring local and national histories. For Kristiansen the problem lies in the emphasis on local and national frameworks for interpretation promoted by postmodernism and postprocessualism that prevents archaeologists from asking broader questions. Moreover, he claims, ‘the humanities, including archaeology, are today losing academic and political impact precisely because of this narrowing of their role’ (p. 24).

The need for an archaeology of Europe. Reasons and perspectives

The retraction of the archaeological research perspective away from big questions and its fragmentation into national, local or even site-specific perspectives, as documented by Kristian Kristiansen, is by no means inexplicable. However, this closing of the archaeological mind can only be adequately understood and countered by viewing it in its wider historical context.

The dialectic between global and local perspectives in archaeological theory, heritage and publications

When I agreed to present the article as a vehicle for discussion at a session at the EAA's annual meeting in Zadar, Croatia, I decided to approach the question of a European archaeology from what I considered to be the three organizing pillars of archaeological practice: heritage, theory and publications. Heritage is the dominant organizational/legislative framework for archaeological practice, and it is where most of the money is spent. Theory, on the other hand, organizes most of our interpretations of the past, while publications are still the most common way of presenting the results of both heritage work (mostly excavations) and interpretations of that work. In this way I hoped to have encircled the dominant parameters for a diagnosis of the archaeological landscapes in Europe. I assumed that there might be some correlation between the three, and that such observed common trends within two or more variables would strengthen the argument, to paraphrase processual jargon.

New developments in archaeomagnetic dating for Romania – A progress report on recent directional studies

This project seeks to address the lack of geomagnetic field data for the territory of Romania by sampling and analysing burnt archaeological features and sediments. The aim of this paper is to present the initial directional results and some magnetic mineralogical determinations from five features sampled during the first field season. Representative examples of directional and magnetic mineralogical analyses are presented, and dates are obtained using the REN-DATE software [Lanos, P., Kovacheva, M., Chauvin, A., 1999. Archaeomagnetism, methodology and applications: implementation and practice of the archaeomagnetic method in France and Bulgaria. Journal of European Archaeology, 2, 365–392] and the published moving window averaged data from Hungary [Márton, P., 2003. Recent achievements in archaeomagnetism in Hungary. Geophysical Journal International 153(3), 675–690]. A comparison is made of the data obtained in this study with the published directional data from Bulgaria, Hungary and Ukraine.

Forum: Ethical Issues in European Professional Archaeology

(2007). Forum: Ethical Issues in European Professional Archaeology. Public Archaeology: Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 116-123.

Historians and Archaeologists: An English Perspective

Some historical differences between the intellectual roots of archaeology in Europe and the United States will be outlined in order to focus on the relationship between history and medieval/postmedieval archaeology, using England as a specific case study. In particular, the importance of English “landscape history” as an interdisciplinary project will be discussed. Some philosophical and theoretical aspects will be briefly reviewed, but here the primary focus is on the practical issues created by trying to apply interdisciplinary approaches within the context of commercial archaeology.

Warfare and Violence in Prehistoric Europe: an Introduction

At the moment, one trend in both North American and European archaeology has been to un-pacify the past. The study of warfare and violence in past societies has long been problematic. The debate has been thrown into much sharper focus during the 1990s by a series of publications, notably Keeley's own War before Civilization (1996) in which he proposed that the past had been effectively pacified by modern anthropologists for broadly ideological reasons. Modern state societies may have an unparalleled ability to organise destructive mass violence; yet both ethnographic studies of groups, such as the Gebusi (Knauft 1987) and the Yanomamo (Chagnon 1968), and archaeological studies, like recent Anasazi reinterpretations, have shown that non-state societies are equally capable of using deadly force, sometimes with rates of homicide and war casualties exceeding any known in the modern West. Keywords: archaeological studies; European archaeology; Keeley's War before Civilization ; modern anthropologists; North American archaeology; warfare; Yanomamo

Una nueva forma en el repertorio cerámico protohistórico de la Península Ibérica: clepsidra

Traditionally considered by European Archaeology as water clocks, clepsydras have a use that is closer to etymological meaning: “water thieves”. In this paper we study and systematize clepsydras found in the Iberian Peninsula, whit the function of capturing and distributing liquids, both for domestic purposes of storing and cooking and in ceremonies at sanctuaries and burials.

Future Connections: The Potential of Web service and Portal Technologies for the Historic Environment

Where the other papers in this special edition of Internet Archaeology look at the experiences and achievements of the ARENA project this paper looks to the future. Portal technologies like those used by the ARENA portal are already moving into new and exciting areas, areas such as web services and portlet technologies in particular. This paper considers the work of the ADS in projects such as ARENA, but also HEIRPORT and CREE, work that has revealed new and exciting paths towards data sharing on a European scale. Are these the paths that any new ARENA project will have to follow to sustain the dream of interoperable data sharing for European archaeology? This article will particularly interest: * Archaeologists * Those working with digital archives * Heritage Managers Key points: * Portals and data sharing * Web services and Portlet technologies * Communication and dissemination of information to the public

Culture, society and evolutionary theory

Kristiansen's paper represents a typically stimulating and thoughtful response to some of the recent theoretical trends in archaeology, and it is equally characteristic of his now long-established ‘public intellectual’ role in European archaeology that he should want to bring his concerns into the arena of open debate and to explore common ground between different perspectives. I find myself in agreement with many of his conclusions, of course without accepting his view that they are largely incompatible with the Darwinian view that he criticizes. In what follows I want to respond to some of his criticisms and address what I see as some of his misconceptions about the nature of evolutionary approaches and their implications for understanding the human past.

Recent Approaches to the History of Middle European Archaeology: Problems and Prospects

In the past few years the number of books about aspects of the history of Middle European archaeology has considerably risen. High time to sum up the results, methodological approaches and problems so far.

Book Review: Alluvial archaeology in Europe

Book Review: Alluvial archaeology in Europe

Neanderthal–modern human competition? A comparison between the mammals associated with Middle and Upper Palaeolithic industries in Europe during OIS 3

AbstractThe extinction of the Neanderthals is generally believed to be due to interspecific competition with modern humans. This hypothesis is tested using the faunas accompanying Upper and Middle Palaeolithic archaeology in Europe dating to OIS 3 and the start of OIS 2 (60–20 ka BP). The issue is also considered in the light of ecological theory, controlled experiments and field studies of competition between congeneric species. This paper concludes that competition between modern humans and Neanderthals is not easily demonstrated and that if it did exist it need not have caused Neanderthal extinction. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.