Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us
Posted on by Sébastien Plutniak

“Untold stories. “Marginal” scholars and/or intellectual movements in the history of archaeology” panel @ 20th IUPPS Conference, Timişoara, Romania

Table of contents

Session abstract

Boucher de Perthes, Pigorini, Montelius, Childe… our histories of archaeology are dominated by this giants of the discipline and from their main intellectual affiliations (evolutionism, cultural-historical approach, New Archaeology and so on). Ezra Zubrow in a paper on the international trends of theoretical archaeology (Norwegian Archaeological Review 1980) wrote that the ship of archaeology doesn’t need only helmsmen but also good sailors. The session is devoted to the life and works of these “minor” scholars or to the less debated theoretical movements in our discipline.

Adèle Chevalier, “When marginality is the norm. Fighting for prehistorical studies in the the Geological survey of Indochina (1900-1932)”

In the early decades of the 20th century, after the first and random discoveries of prehistorical material in the territories of French Indochina, the practice of prehistory is starting to faintly appear in the administrative structure of the colony. It takes place in the Geological survey thanks to very few actors, never prehistorians themselves. The sites they discover and study depend on the geological aims of their fieldwork and their practices on the geological ways of collecting and classifying. The excavation and the studies of the ancient populations of the colony take some times to be affirmed as one of the goals of the Survey and, except for a short amount of time during the 1920’, they are always at the margins of the Survey’s activities.
Paradoxically, in the very beginning of the 1930’, when Indochinese studies and discoveries are well known to prehistorians of Southeast Asia, and when the prehistory itself start to be institutionalized at an interregional scale, the new frame that is being built in the region is rejected by the First Congress of Pre- and Protohistorical Sciences that take place in London in 1932, pushing the emergence of Southeast Asia Prehistory at the margins of the discipline.

Aleksandra Cetwińska, “Erazm Majewski and his contribution to archaeology in 20th-century Warsaw”

The term “great fathers of archaeology” is usually attributed to internationally recognized figures such as Oscar Montelius and Vere Gordon Childe. However, these names have no meaning for the everyday bread eater, especially in a period lacking access to information, when science is reserved only for the wealthiest social classes. Locally oriented grassroots work is therefore of no small importance in this regard, as evidenced by Erazm Majewski (1858-1922), a Polish entrepreneur, chemist, sociologist, ethnographer, archaeologist and novelist active in 20th-century Warsaw. His interest in the past began with accidental finds, quickly developed into a collecting passion, and by the end of his life he was recognised with the title of professor despite his lack of formal academic qualifications. His activities were related not only to conducting scientific research, but also to creating spaces for meeting, studying, learning archaeology and discussing the past. The poster shows how one man’s actions can influence the development of a discipline and its perception in society.

François Djindjian, “A destroyed and forgotten generation: Ukrainian Archaeologists victims of Stalinist purges”

This paper reconstructs the history of Ukrainian archaeologists between the end of Ukraine’s first independence and the beginning of the Second World War. Almost all archaeologists were subjected to repression, the consequences of which were either execution, sentencing to the Gulag or suicide and for the lucky ones exile. After 1945, the Kiev Institute of Archaeology was recreated with Russian archaeologists from Leningrad and Moscow. This policy of eradication and russification also concerned ethnographers, folklorists, art historians, writers (“the renaissance shot”), itinerant bards and more generally the largest part of the Ukrainian intelligentsia.

Alfonso Ramírez Galicia, “Marginal excavators? The innovative role played by the crew of the excavation field-school of Pincevent, France”

Historical narratives focusing on “great scientific figures” tend to underestimate the importance of their social milieu. However, the practice of science, specially in such empirical field as archaeology, is a collective endeavor. So, what part did the excavation crew members play in the production of scientific innovations? Are the directors and their senior colleagues analogous to chief conductors and main performers of an orchestra? Or can the entire social structure of the team be considered as a collective author? To address the problem of the social vs the individual determination of scientific innovation, I conducted a case study in archaeology concerning the excavation “field-school” of Pincevent (1964 to the present). This case is relevant because: 1) in the mainstream disciplinary history, this “school” is considered to be the place of origin of some of the technical and methodological innovations that characterize the modern study of Paleolithic occupation floors and structures in France, such as planimetric excavation, spatial refitting studies, and analysis of chaîne opératoire; 2) the school was created by André Leroi-Gourhan (1911-1986), one of the most renowned figures of French prehistoric archaeology of the second half of the 20th Century, and there is historiographical debate on how important was his role on the innovations.
Pincevent is located on the banks of the river Seine near the community of La Grande-Paroisse a hundred kilometers southeast of Paris. It consists of several Magdalenian campsites – up to 4500m2 – preserved in the laminated silts created by seasonal floodings. In order to exploit the unique richness of the site, A. Leroi-Gourhan created a highly specialized and hierarchical structure to control all the steps of the chain of scientific production. I argue that, in spite of this structure, the empirical challenges posed by the terrain granted to his field collaborators the prerogative of innovation. My analysis of the excavation archives shows that: 1) between 1964 and 1972, several of the main tools and practices of the planimetric excavation (3D latex casting, horizontal décapage, azimuthal photography, recording sheets) were inspired by the excavators and the students, not by A. Leroi-Gourhan; 2) during the 1970-1980’s, the permanent crew members and the students developed new microstratigraphic analysis techniques, spatial analysis of refittings and established new collaboration networks with rival schools; 3) after the death of A. Leroi-Gourhan, in 1986, at a time when his school was entering a dead-end, his crew created a new structure of collective direction, based on the principle of taking turns in responsibilities. This new structure allowed to reinvigorate and to diversify the school of Pincevent, but it also created new conflicts that posed a threat to its continuity. Finally, the contradiction between this opposed tendencies characterizes the outgoing history of this school, from the beginning of the 21st Century until today.

Federico Nomi & Alessandro Guidi, “The role of “doctors house” in Italian prehistoric archaeology of XIX century”

Luigi Pigorini between 1874 and 1877 became the leading figure of the newborn prehistoric archaeology founding the first periodical (the “Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana”), creating a National Prehistoric and Ethnographic Museum in Rome, becoming the first Professor of Prehistory in Rome University.
One of the secrets of this hegemony that lasted until his death, in 1925, was his capacity to establish an highly branched network with many amateur archaeologist who collected with surveys and excavations data and objects that he voraciously tried to obtain.
Many of these scholars were local doctor in their counties, a role socially very important in their communities and that allowed them also to collect information from peasants working in the countryside.
We’ll concentrate our attention on four scholars:

  1. Concezio Rosa (1824-1876), belonging to the older generation, made many important discoveries in the Vibrata valley, in Abruzzi. He had many contrasts with Pigorini, trying uselessly to create a local museum in Corropoli with materials that after his death were given to the Rome museum.
  2. Ignazio Cerio (1840-1921), born in Abruzzi but living in Capri where he conducted very important excavations (between them one of the earliest low Paleolithic sites found in Italy, near the Hotel Quisisana), creating also a local collection.
  3. Domenico Ridola (1841.1932), a very esteemed physician from Matera that in 1913 became also senator of Italy, who made very important discoveries, especially regarding the Neolithic of the Matera region, core of the Museum he created in his city.
  4. Paolo Carucci (1842-1925) from Caggiano, in the province of Salerno, obtained his degree in medicine but never practiced the profession. He made important discoveries specially excavating in the Pertosa cave (where he had a strong contrast with Giovanni Patroni, author of other excavations in the same site) and had lasting relationships with Pigorini.
    By reconstructing the activities of these figures and their interactions with the academic and institutional scene of the period, it is possible to gain an insight into aspects that have been little considered, but which are crucial for the definition of prehistoric archaeology in Italy.

Jakub Linetty, “Count Albin Belina Węsierski and discovering of forgotten cradle of Polish state on Ostrów Lednicki island”

Ostów Lednicki is a large island on Lednica Lake, between the cities of Poznań and Gniezno in the Polish region of Wielkopolska (Greater Poland). In the light of contemporary knowledge, resulting from decades of historical, archaeological, anthropological and paleobotanical research, we know that it was one of the most important centers of the first Polish state, i.e. the early Piast monarchy of Prince Mieszko I and his son Bolesław Chrobry. This place is also often associated with the beginnings of Christianity in Poland and the baptism of the first historical ruler – Mieszko I.
To this day remained large ruins of the early Piast residence – the Palatium, and the ramparts of the hillfort. However, the function and significance of this place have been shrouded in a fog of oblivion for centuries. In the Middle Ages Polish chronicler Jan Długosz mentioned this place, having in mind ruins. But later, till the 19th century, historical sources had been silent on this place.
The discovering of this place began in the 19th century on the wave of popularity of Polish native history and the growing interest in archaeology. This was due to the mention made by Count Edward Raczyński in the second volume of his work „Remembrance of Wielkopolska” published in 1843. The mention identified the Island of Ostrów Lednicki with the „castrum Ostrów”, noted in the late medieval Polish-Silesian chronicle. Prince Chrobry was supposed to receive the emperor Otton III at this place. Under the influence of Raczyński’s finding, the local Prussian authorities became interested in the local ruins. They conducted excavation there, in the years 1845-1847, causing significant and irreversible damage and endind with the conclusion that the object has no historical value. As a result, the Prussian governement lost interest in the subject and put the whole island up for sale.
It was purchased in 1856 at an auction by local Polish aristocrat, Count Albin Belina Węsierski, who had been interested in archaeology and was trying to preserve the Polish cultural heritage. The heritage of the nation deprived of the state and any rights at that time.
After purchasing the island Albin Węsierski started cleaning it up and began research. He did not feel competent in archaeology matters, which is why he started to correspond with the most eminent Polish historians and beginners in archaeology and amateurs, such as Joachim Lelewel, Aleksander Przezdziecki and Antoni Białecki. Under their influence he ordered to make a plan of the basement of the ruins on which he marked the places of discoveries. At that times, when for numerous amateur archaeologists the remains of pottery vessels were of no value, Węsierski collected even animal bones and cereal grains. He also established cooperation with specialists, ordered analyzes of the chemical composition of mortars from the ruins of Ostrów Lednicki. He sent human bones for analysis to Rudolf Virchow – the famous Berlin anthropologist.
Thanks to encouregement of count Aleksander Przezdziecki he participated in three international congresses on anthropology and prehistoric archaeology – in Bologne in 1871, in Brussels in 1872 and in Stockholm in 1874. He wrote reports from them in letters to friends. He also did his best to make sure that monuments of Polish history find place in the most prominent museums in Europe and that Polish culture and history are not erased. He donated artifacts from his collections to museums, including the British Museum in London. Due to his cooperation with numerous researchers were born first scientific works on the ruins of Ostrów Lednicki, on their function and significance. He also popularized this monument in belles-lettres and painting. He planned to create a museum and a cultural park in this place. Unfortunately his death in 1874 thwarted the plans.
Albin Węsierski is one of the little known archaeological researchers and for years he was underestimated even in Poland, although his achievements were known among a small group of archaeology historians. However his role in shaping the archaeology as a scientific discipline in Poland was significant, also due to his discoveries, which in the 19th centuries were called Polish Pompeii. Thank to his efforts the greatest early medieval archaeological site in Poland was saved. The place that played fundamental role in the beginnings of the country.

Sara Daffara, “Federico Strobino & Monte Fenera, Piedmont, north-western Italy, a 300,000-year history”

Federico Strobino is a figure who deserves to be remembered in the panorama of Italian archaeology; a multifaceted character, he lived many lives, one of which is imortalised in Audrey Gordon’s documentary “Une Histoire d’Amour sous l’occupation Italienne”. For the purpose of this presentation, we will focus on Federico Strobino as a great enthusiast and scholar of prehistory.
Teacher and accountant, after the Second World War he moved to Borgosesia (north-western Italy) where he began to take an interest in the Monte Fenera area. His perseverance in promoting research and his interest in the discipline make him today a fundamental figure in the research on the Palaeolithic of north-western Italy. During the speleological exploration of the Monte Fenera caves, he realizes that some of the caves preserve Palaeolithic contexts that only multidisciplinary studies conducted by teams of specialists can fully understand. Thus began the long collaboration with the University of Turin, thanks to which, between the 60s and 70s of the last century, the first systematic research was carried out in the caves of Monte Fenera, still today the only area in the region where a Middle Paleolithic site is being excavated (Ciota Ciara cave).
Federico Strobino dedicated himself over the years to the speleological and archaeological exploration of many caves on Monte Fenera, making a substantial contribution to the knowledge of the pre-protohistoric frequentation of that area; he initiates collaborations with Italian and European research institutes and scholars for the study of archaeological and paleontological materials and he participates in Italian and international congresses, including the UISPP congress in Nice in 1976.
In order to preserve the archaeological contexts of Monte Fenera, Federico Strobino was the main promoter of the establishment of the Monte Fenera Natural Park. We owe him again, after years of postponements, the creation of the “C. Conti” Museum of Archaeology and Paleontology in Borgosesia, as well as the construction of the refuge on Monte Fenera still destined today to give hospitality to researchers conducting studies in the area.
Died in 2000, Federico Strobino deserves to be remembered as the founder of prehistoric archaeology in Piedmont.

Michele Truffi & Federico Nomi, “Federico Halbherr, a Pioneer of Mediterranean archaeology”

The paper aims to tell “untold stories” about a figure who, despite his centrality in the birth and early development of the field of archaeology now generally known as Mediterranean Archaeology, has received little attention in the international literature.

Federico Halbherr (1857-1930) was an Italian archaeologist who came to Crete in 1884, following the advice of his professor, the philologist Domenico Comparetti, interested in researching the oldest records of laws in ancient Greece. In the same year, the Italian expedition became famous for the discovery of the Great Inscription of Gortyna. In 1899, after a few years of exploration in Crete, Halbherr was appointed head of the first Italian archaeological mission in the Mediterranean, in Crete. As is well known, the mission achieved important scientific results in the field of Cretan prehistory, including the excavation of two sites of fundamental importance, Festòs and Haghia Triada. In his capacity of head of the Mission, Halbherr intensified his relations with Luigi Pigorini, the most powerful Italian prehistorian, that was also the director of the School of Archaeology in Rome, on whom the mission depended for administrative and funding management. As is well known, the mission achieved important scientific results in the field of Cretan prehistory, including the excavation of two sites of fundamental importance, Festòs and Haghia Triada.
The paper shows, through an extensive exchange of correspondence, how the relationship between the two archaeologists influenced the first steps of Italian archaeology abroad in the first 15 years of the 20th century. In particular, the research brings new data:

  1. on the contrasts that preceded the establishment of the Italian Archaeological School in Athens in 1909;
  2. the distance, more evident in Italy than in the European context, between prehistoric archaeology and Aegean archaeology.

In conclusion, the paper tries to contextualize the figure of this scholar and to explain why he received less attention in the context of the history of early Aegean studies.

Seonaid Valiant, “Zelia Nuttall. The Complicated Legacy of a fin de siècle Indigenous Artifacts Collector”

Recently, international museums and libraries have been grappling with responsible stewardship for patrimonial archeological artifacts and manuscripts gathered by 18th and 19th century antiquarians. New agreements are being designed that allow for the countries of origin to provide loans of artifacts, receive acknowledgments, and ask for the repatriation of materials.
Who did these collectors represent, and how did they get involved with extracting materials? What relationships did they have with the actors in the countries in which they worked? This talk will examine the role of the Mexican-American anthropologist Zelia Nuttall (1857-1933) as she worked to establish archaeological standards in Mexico at the same time that she sent manuscripts and artifacts to the United States.
Zelia Nuttall began collecting indigenous artifacts and manuscripts on her honeymoon, which she spent in Mexico in 1880. Wedded to Alphonse Pinart, the French ethnographer who gathered materials for the Trocadero in France, she learned the art of cultivating relationships with excavators, archivists, and looters. After divorcing Pinart in 1886, Nuttall continued collecting and selling pre-Columbian and colonial manuscripts to museums in the United States, a project she justified as being in the interest of science. Removing archaeological objects from Mexico to the Peabody Museum or the University of California, she maintained, enabled their preservation and made them more broadly available for scientific study. This was part of her larger project to build institutions of higher learning.
At the same time, she made her home in Mexico City and attempted to establish scientific methodologies for archaeology there. This brought her into conflict with the National Archeologist of Mexico, Leopoldo Batres, who was struggling to exert national control over Mexican archaeology and exploit the nation’s rich archeological legacy for political and ideological ends. A bureaucrat and government official as well as an archaeologist, Batres was committed to the position that authority over indigenous materials and their interpretation belonged, not to an international scientific community, but to the Mexican nation, for whom it could play a crucial role in defining indigenous and Mexican identity.
The conflict between Nuttall and Batres intensified in 1910, when Batres confiscated an archaeological site that Nuttall had begun excavating at the Isla de Sacrifcios. Nuttall publicly accused Batres of using nonscientific methods at the site, and Batres retorted that she had no scientific credentials that would entitle her to criticize him. In the years that followed, Nuttall would orchestrate a scholarship for Manual Gamio, a Mexican archaeology student that enabled him to acquire his scientific training in the United States. She did so in the explicit hope that Gamio, who eventually received a PhD in archaeology from Columbia University, would supplant Batres—which, following the collapse of the Porfirian government, he did. The ongoing rivalry between Nuttall and Batres serves as a case study of the ways in which foreign anthropologists and Mexican nationalists struggled over the archaeological artifacts that would define Mexico’s history and identity.
Nuttall was involved in a cosmopolitan trend to establish archaeological standards at the same time that she sought to build institutions of higher education. However, her actions would leave behind a complicated legacy related to issues of national patrimony.

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Sébastien Plutniak (July 30, 2023). “Untold stories. “Marginal” scholars and/or intellectual movements in the history of archaeology” panel @ 20th IUPPS Conference, Timişoara, Romania. Historical Studies of Pre & Protohistoric Archaeology. Retrieved October 14, 2024 from https://doi.org/10.58079/pk9b