headerpos: 9517
 
 
  Estonian Journal of Archaeology

ISSN 1736-7484 (electronic)  ISSN 1406-2933 (print)

Published since 1997

Estonian Journal of Archaeology

ISSN 1736-7484 (electronic)  ISSN 1406-2933 (print)

Published since 1997

Publisher
Journal Information
» Editorial Policy
» Editorial Board
» Abstractring/Indexing
Guidelines for Authors
» For Authors
» Instructions to Authors
» Copyright Form
Guidelines for Reviewers
» For Reviewers
» Review Form
Subscription Information
Internet Links
Support and Contact
List of Issues
» 2019
» 2018
» 2017
» 2016
» 2015
» 2014
» 2013
» 2012
» 2011
» 2010
Vol. 14, Issue 2
Vol. 14, Issue 1
» 2009
» 2008
» 2007
» Back Issues
» Back issues (full texts)
  in Google
Publisher
» Other Journals
» Staff

IRRESPONSIBILITY IN ARCHAEOLOGY; pp. 143–152

(Full article in PDF format) doi: 10.3176/arch.2010.2.03


Authors

Mehdi Mortazavi

Abstract

Many scholars believe that since the emergence of “New Archaeology” in America and Britain in the mid-1960s, lively and widespread interest has developed in theoretical aspects of archaeology. This trend has been most marked in the United States and Great Britain,
but has also been active in other countries, such as Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, and Czechoslovakia. Especially welcome in the field today is an interest of many scholars in bringing new theoretical approaches to bear on the ever-expanding database. In fact, development of new theoretical aspects in archaeology is the most important character of “New Archaeology”. In “New Archaeology”, scholars argued that archaeo­logical reasoning should be made explicit. Conclusions should be based not simply on the personal authority of the scholar making the interpretation, but on an explicit framework of logical argument.
The aim of this paper is twofold, to identify and to criticize irresponsibility in archaeology in the age of reason. The potential for irresponsibility in old archaeology is greater than in “New Archaeology”. The paper will thus use the problem of irresponsibility and its figure to investigate the play between seduction and authority. It will point to the blurring of borders between the respectable and the “pseudo” archaeologists.


References

Binford , L. S. 1962. Archaeology as anthropology. – American Antiquity , 28 , 215–225.
doi:10.2307/278380

Boivin , N. & Fuller , D. 2002. Looking for post-processual theory in South Asian archaeology. – Indian Archaeology in Retrospect IV. Archaeology and Historiography: History , Theory and Method. Eds S. Settar & R. Korisettar.Indian Council of Historical Research , Delhi , 191–216.

Chippindale , C. 1993. Ambition , deference , discrepancy , consumption: the intellectual

background to a post-processual archaeology. – Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? Eds N. Yoffee & A. Sherratt.Cambridge University Press , Cambridge , 27–36.

Dark , K. R. 1995. Theoretical Archaeology. Duckworth , London.

Fuller , D. & Boivin , N. 2002. Beyond description and diffusion: a history of processual theory
in the archaeology of South Asia. – Indian Archaeology in Retrospect IV. Archaeology and
Historiography: History , Theory and Method. Eds S. Settar & R. Korisettar. Indian Council of Historical Research , Delhi , 159–190.

Gould , R. A. 2007. Disaster Archaeology. The University of Utah Press , USA.

Hester , J. J. & Grady , J. 1982. Introduction to Archaeology. The Dryden Press , New York.

Hodder , I. 1986. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press , Cambridge.

Hodder , I. 1991. Archaeological theory in contemporary European societies: the emergence of competing traditions. – Archaeological Theory in Europe , The Last 3 Decades. Ed. I. Hodder. Routledge , London , 1–25.

Hodder , I. , Shanks , M. , Alexandri , A. , Buchli , V. , Garman , J. , Last , J. & Lucas , G. 1995. Interpreting Archaeology , Finding Meaning in the Past.Routledge , London.

Johnson , M. 1999. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers , Oxford.

McNairn , B. 1980. The Method and Theory of V. Gordon Childe , Economic , Social and Cultural Interpretations of Prehistory. Edinburgh University Press , Edinburgh.

Mosapour Negari , F. 2003. Palaeodietary Analysis in the Middle Bronze Age Site of Sidon , Lebanon. MSc Dissertation. University of Bradford , United Kingdom.

O’Brien , M. J. & Lyman , R. L. 2000. Applying Evolutionary Archaeology , A Systematic Approach. Kluwer Academic/Plenum , New York.

Patrick , L. E. 1985. Is there an archaeological record?Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory , 8 , 27–62. 

Patterson , T. C. 1990. Some theoretical tensions within and between the processual and post­processual archaeologies. – Journal of Anthropological Archaeology , 9 , 189–200.
doi:10.1016/0278-4165(90)90003-V

Preucel , R. W. 1991. The philosophy of archaeology. – Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past.Ed. W. Preucel. Illinois University Press , Illinois , 17–30.

Renfrew , C. & Bahn , P. 2001. Archaeology: Theories , Methods and Practice. Thames and Hudson , London.

Shanks , M. & Hodder , I. 1998. Processual , postprocessual and interpretive archaeologies. – Reader in Archaeological Theory: Post-Processual and Cognitive Approaches. Ed. D. S. Whitley. TJ International Ltd. , London , 69–98.

Shanks , M. & Tilley , C. 1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Polity Press , Oxford.

Trigger , B. G. 1968. Beyond History: The Methods of Prehistory. Holt , Rinehart and Winston , New York.

Watson , P. J. , LeBlanc , S. A. & Redman , C. L. 1984. Archaeological Explanation , the Scientific Method in Archaeology. New York.

Whitley , D. S. 1998. New approaches to old problems archaeology in search of an ever elusive past. – Reader in Archaeological Theory: Post-Processual and Cognitive Approaches. Ed. D. S. Whitley. TJ International Ltd. , London , 1–30.
 
Back

Current Issue: Vol. 23, Issue 1, 2019




Publishing schedule:
No. 1: 20 June
No. 2: 20 December