Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2015
…
5 pages
1 file
Archaeologies of the body are most familiar to us in terms of analyses of skeletal remains, through the forensic arm of the discipline, and through examination of the body's materials. Th ese archaeologies contribute to our knowledge of the lives and deaths of long-dead and not-so-long-dead individuals and groups. However, archaeology's strength-perceived by some as a disciplinary weakness (e.g. Miller 1983; Hicks 2010: 60)-is in letting noncorporeal matter serve as a proxy for the body. While the imbalance of the strength of representations of the body may be clearly justifi ed for bodies of the past, archaeologies of the contemporary are oft en defi ned by the lived or transitional nature of their subject matter. One of the most controversial (but also the most useful) defi ning characteristics of contemporary archaeology is the living resource: people, plants, and animals are still comprehensively involved in the sites of our studies, whether corporeally, materially, or mentally. As a result, the body itself may be seen as an archaeological site, and embodied selves as revealing as, and in pluripotential relationships with, non-corporeal matter.
D. Borić and J. Robb (eds.) Past Bodies, 2008
Museum International, 1998
Rescue Archaeology. The archaeology of future. Abstract: Rescue (vel Salvage, Preventive, Development-led) Archaeology needs urgently adjustment of local or national laws to the Valetta Convention legislation. The experience shows, that traditional methods of documentation and registration of field works is not satisfactory and requires urgent improvements. Britain, France and Poland can be presented as good examples of progress in this area.
Art Antiquity and Law, 2010
Archaeological fieldwork is determined by a combination of ethics and practicality. This fieldwork is furthered burdened by the sensitivity that excavation causes destruction: "…that in order to know the past, we dig we intervene and destroy" Shanks 2012: 91). Other factors that impede intensive survey and excavation include urban expansion (cultural resource management or CRM), environmental change, indigenous rights, availability of funds, and spaces for the storage, analysis, and exposition of artifacts. In some cases, artifacts and structures are reburied (cf. Griggs 2014). And purpose, relative to specific goals and changing/transforming archaeological methodologies and technologies, also influence knowledge production. The archaeological record is itself an entrapment. It involves "working in conditions of contract and funding…which refuse the possibility of undertaking the necessary theoretical labour required to build a competent interpretive archaeology" (Barrett 1990: 35). Archaeologists, within the sphere of archaeological space, attain 'privilege' status. They can, at times, occupy sacred and royal spaces, once only the 'haunt' of ancient royalty and religious leaders. Yet, "those with the privilege of doing archaeology as a profession are challenged by the narrowness of their experiences" (Cunningham and MacEachern 2016). Archaeological fieldwork, as that privileged position, can potentially efface philosopher Martin Heidegger's concept of "thrownness", how human beings are 'thrown' into a particular time and place and there is where we must enact our lives. The archaeological dilemma, however, in this time and space is that the archaeological site is already conceived as constituted, as the contemporary ruin. Shouldn't we, however, as archaeologists, enter fieldwork as a situation of options? The problem, as stated by Barrett (2022) is that "our experiences of things are read as if they offered a particular example of the ways that reality has already operated" (2022: 111). As archaeologists, "things [as they are unearthed in the present] make sense to us" (Ibid: 111). These sacred and royal areas are spaces of remembrance and memory that warrant special status and sensibility, yet are routinely excavated without any ritual or context-specific sensitivity to how the space was originally sensed and practiced in the past. The end result of 'to dig or not to dig', and how it is done performatively, usually has nothing to do with the context of past spaces. This results in social destruction, a state of human occupational dynamics (sacred, ritualistic, profane, and habitual) that had lasted for decades, hundreds, sometimes even thousands of years. This has a profound effect, I propose, for intra/inter-action at archaeological sites within the confines of exposed archaeological spaces: 'to be or not to be' present is never the question because it is never asked or performed by archaeologists in the field.
The study of excavated human remains has a central part to play in our understanding of past lives.
Despite its great and growing popularity it seems to me that archaeology is still a widely misunderstood subject (not least by some of its friends, and even of its practitioners), and as a result of this it is still far from having achieved the place, either in formal education or in the general consciousness of society, to which its achievements, and its relevance to our human condition, entitle it. (Evans 1975).
Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 2011
Natural Language Processing Journal Volume 7, 2024
Ars Judaica: The Bar Ilan Journal of Jewish Art, 2015
History Research, 2015
Revista de Occidente, vol. 328, 2008
E-International Relations, 2019
Neuro-Oncology Advances
Digestive and Liver Disease, 2011
Asian Pacific Journal of Allergy and Immunology, 2021
European Journal of Cancer, 2011
International Journal of Poultry Science, 2014