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

“History of the History of Archaeology: between Archaeologists’ and Historians’ Concerns. Figures, Trends, and Perspectives” panel @ 20th IUPPS Conference, Timişoara, Romania

Table of Contents

Session abstract

Since several decades, historians and sociologists of science scrutinize the history of science as a practice. Loren R. Graham et al., for example, investigated the “Functions and Uses of Disciplinary Histories” in their eponymous edited book (1983). Writing the history of archaeological research, and prehistoric archaeology in particular, has a long history too. It raised the interest of several archaeologists in the early 20th century, such as James Reid Moir, in his paper about the “Position of Prehistoric Research in England” (1917), and Léon Aufrère, with his “Essay on the first discoveries by Boucher de Perthes and the origins of primitive archaeology” (1936, in French). This long-term concern of archaeologists for the writing of the history of their field has continuous occurrences until today, as illustrated by Glyn Daniels’ introduction on the “Necessity for an Historical Approach to Archaeology” (1981), Douglas R. Givens’ “Short History of the Bulletin of the History of Archaeology” (2002), and Tim Murray’s paper addressing “Why the History of Archaeology is Essential to Theoretical Archaeology” (2013).

These few references demonstrate, first, the relevance of investigating who are the writers of disciplinary histories and what are the uses of these histories and, second, archaeologists’ concern to this regard. This session is intended to strengthen these studies from the case of archaeology. Proposals may relate to, but are not limited to, these topics:

  • the status of the history of archaeology as a discipline, sub-discipline, informal network, etc.
  • publishing aspects of in the history of archaeology: bibliometrical studies, history of related publishing houses or journals, etc.;
  • biographical case-studies about prominent or poorly-known historians of archaeology;
  • tension between the global and national dimensions in the practice of history of archaeology;
  • styles and theoretical trends in the history of archaeology;
  • past and current places of the history of archaeology in university trainings in archaeology;
  • etc.

References

  • Aufrère, Léon. 1936. Essai sur les premières découvertes de Boucher de Perthes et les origines de l’archéologie primitive (1838–1844), Paris: Staude, 48 pp.
  • Daniel, Glyn. 1981. “Introduction: the Necessity for an Historical Approach to Archaeology,” in Towards a History of Archaeology, First Conference on the History of Archaeology, ed. by Glyn Daniel, London: Thames and Hudson, p. 9-13.
  • Givens, Douglas R. 2002. “A Short History of the Bulletin of the History of Archaeology,” Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, 12, 2, p. 12-4, doi: 10.5334/bha.12202.
  • Graham, Loren R., Wolf Lepenies, and Peter Weingart (eds.) 1983. Functions and Uses of Disciplinary Histories, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, xxiii–307 p. doi: 10.10071978-94-009-7035-9.
  • Moir, James Reid. 1917. “The Position of Prehistoric Research in England,” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, 2, 3, p. 381-391, doi: 10.1017/S0958841800023784.
  • Murray, Timothy. 2013. “Why the History of Archaeology is Essential to Theoretical Archaeology,” Complutum, 24, 2, p. 21-31, doi: 10.5209/rev_CMPL.2013.v24.n2.43364.

Hélène Maloigne, “Unearthing Identities and Challenging Hierarchies Queering the History of Archaeology”

Archaeology is collaborative. Despite popular depictions of lone discoverers and histories of the discipline highlighting individuals and ‘their’ discoveries, archaeological or antiquarian exploration, fieldwork as well as work conducted in museum or legacy collections is never undertaken in solitude and without assistance. However, both popular accounts as well as disciplinary histories obscure the social environment archaeology creates in the field. This is particularly prevalent in histories of archaeology in the Middle East, where the attention is on the gendered image of Western archaeologists as ‘objective’ scientists and lone ‘masculine’ Adventurers or female ‘intrepid’ travellers. My approach disrupts this linear narrative to explore the international ‘support networks’ of local collaborators, spouses, and philanthropists that have sustained these individuals but have been written out of a history of scientific’ progresses. My presentation will introduce queer studies and the concept of gender performativity as useful methodological and theoretical approaches for the history of archaeology. While acknowledging the efforts of previous historians in uncovering the role archaeologists played in maintaining empire through class-based, gendered, and racial inequalities, my aim is to challenge the prevailing narrative of linear development in archaeology. Instead, I will focus on two key themes: international collaborations, friendships, and competitions within archaeological communities, and the gendered performance inherent in scientific activity and communication. Taking archaeology in the Middle East as its broad geopolitical context, my research highlights the importance of social connections between archaeologists, local and international trade networks and collaborators, and the informal support provided by family, friends, and private funders. Moreover, it explores how gender, race, and class influenced access to education and career opportunities in archaeology and shaped interpretations of the past. In using queer studies, my aim is not to question or reascribe past gender identities or sexualities, but to use the radical potential of this approach to challenge entrenched ideas of hierarchy and scholarly belonging both in the past and the present. To illustrate this, I will present two case studies: The excavation at Wadi el-Mughara/Mount Carmel in Palestine, led by Dorothy Garrod in 1929; and the projects of the Iraq Expedition, under the directorship of Henri Frankfort, funded by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (now the Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures) from 1929-1937.

Adrianna Szczerba, “The History of Archaeology Research Tradition in the Łódź Archaeology Community”

Over the past several decades, Polish research on the history of archaeology has produced remarkable results, with significant contributions being made by researchers associated with the Łódź archaeology community, which emerged after 1945. Pre-eminent among these was Andrzej Abramowicz (1926–2011), whose achievements in the field set the course for subsequent generations. Abramowicz’s series of studies on the history of Polish antiquity research and archaeology begins with the book Wiek archeologii. Problemy polskiej archeologii dziewiętnastowiecznej (A Century of Archaeology. Topics in Polish Nineteenth-Century Archaeology), which was published in 1967 and earned him his habilitacja postdoctoral degree. Abramowicz’s capstone achievement was his novel overview of the history of archaeology in Poland, published between 1991 and 1992 and consisting of two volumes: Historia archeologii polskiej. Początki (The History of Polish Archaeology. Origins) and Historia archeologii polskiej. XIX i XX wiek (The History of Polish Archaeology. The 19th and 20th Centuries). In addition, Abramowicz also authored a memoir titled Koral Pamięci (Bead of Memory, vols. I–III, 2010–2011), which is based on his meticulous notes, collected letters and the documents and diaries of his wife, Maria Abramowicz, née Łączyńska (1926–2015), an English philologist and translator of archaeological treatises.
Andrzej Abramowicz graduated with a degree in archaeology from the University of Łódź, and worked at the Institute of the History of Material Culture of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Łódź Branch (modern-day Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology), which between 1973 and 1992 also employed Maria Magdalena Blomberg (b. 1936), another brilliant historian of archaeology, who is currently in retirement. At the outset of her career, she worked at the Department of Archaeology of the University of Łódź, where she focused on the Roman influence period (as was the dominant trend in the department at the time). After joining the Institute of the History of Material Culture, she was inspired by Abramowicz to focus on the history of Polish archaeology, eventually expanding her research to include the history of archaeology in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, which was a natural step considering the political history of Poland and the biographies of Polish researchers of antiquity and archaeologists. In 1987, she earned her PhD in the humanities for her dissertation Polscy członkowie rosyjskich towarzystw archeologicznych (Polish Members of Russian Archaeological Societies). Although M. Blomberg retired in late 1992, she continued her research, which three years later earned her the habilitacja postdoctoral degree for her dissertation Badania archeologiczne Polaków na terytorium Imperium Rosyjskiego w XIX i początku XX wieku (Polish Archaeological Research on the Territory of the Russian Empire in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries). She returned to her alma mater – this time as a lecturer – in 1995, continuing her research on Polish archaeology, particularly on research conducted by political exiles in the central and eastern border regions of the Russian Empire. It is important to mention that Blomberg’s employment led to a significant increase in the number of courses, devoted to the history of archaeology, offered by the University of Łódź, which makes the university stand out from other archaeology centres in Poland.
Another faculty member who conducted research and taught courses on the history of archaeology at the University of Łódź was Tadeusz Grabarczyk (b. 1946) – since 2016 professor emeritus – a specialist in the history of German archaeological research in East Pomerania (the north of Poland). Since 2009, the research on the history of archaeology at the Institute of Archaeology of the University of Łódź has been continued by the author of this paper.

Marzena Woźny & Dagmara H. Werra, “The Beginnings of Polish University Archaeology in the Description of Historians of Archaeology”

In the second half of the 19th century, archaeology, initially supported both in Europe and abroad by scientific societies, began to gain the status of a university discipline. At that time, in Central Europe, its departments began to be established at the universities. In the Habsburg Monarchy, its first chairs were established at the University of Vienna (in 1849 for Ján Kollár [1793–1852], associate professor of Slavic archaeology) and at the Charles University in Prague (in 1850 for Jan Erazim Vocel [1802/3–1871], professor of archaeology and history of art). Both Kollár and Vocel dealt with archaeology understood in a broad, romantic way. On the other hand, issues related to prehistoric archaeology, referring to the achievements of natural sciences, were introduced to their lectures in the 1860s and 1870s by anthropologists. This happened during the breakthrough discussions on the theory of evolution and the new chronology of history, which contested the biblical vision of human history. In Central Europe, in Munich, in the Kingdom of Bavaria (soon to be part of the German Empire), Johannes Ranke (1836–1916), a physician and anthropologist, became a professor of both anthropology and prehistory in the late 1860s. Also in the German Empire, in Berlin, Rudolf Virchow (1821–1902), a professor of anatomy, incorporated prehistory into his university classes during this period.
At that time, Poland was not on the map of Europe – was divided between three countries: Russia, Austria (later Austria-Hungary) and Prussia (later Germany). Nevertheless, in 1866, thanks to the favour of the Austrian authorities, the first Polish chair of archaeology was established at the Jagiellonian University in Kraków. The creation of this chair required a lot of formal and informal efforts, as well as a favourable political climate, as archaeology was then associated with national issues.
The presentation aims to show how historians of archaeology described the beginnings of Polish university archaeology. When and what was written about, what was paid attention to (professors’ careers, students), what was omitted (behind the scenes of creating chairs, methods of operation, controversies, international context). What did it come from?

Nupur Tiwari, “Decolonising India’s Prehistory: Materials, Periodisation and Nomenclatures”

The beginning of Indian prehistory started in the 1800s when Robert Bruce Foote discovered the first stone tool, a handaxe, in the southernmost part of India, Pallavaram, Tamil Nadu. A.C. L Carllyle made discoveries of microliths in central India in the mid-1800s. An expedition led by De Terra and Paterson to study the Soan Valley stratigraphy was made pre-Independence. The above stated sentences are an example of the “history” of archaeology in India is which is basically written by the British colonisers. The material culture, i.e., the stone tools, was constantly compared with the European evidence and the periods were defined on the same basis. Attempts were made to revise the nomenclature and periodisation within prehistory at least three times. The first time in 1916, Foote did the first periodisation according to the classifications of tools in his own collection. The second time Burkitt and Camidae revised it in 1930 used series-based division- for Palaeolithic- series I, II, III and IV- European counterpart of Lower, Middle, Upper and Mesolithic cultures. Furthermore, the third and the last time was during the International Congress of Asian Archaeology, New Delhi, 1961- where the organisation decided upon the use of the Early Stone Age, Middle Stone Age and the Late Stone Age and again shifted to Lower Palaeolithic, Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. These terms have been used interchangeably in historical literature and even scholarly work that is not even a decade old. In light of new research, a need to remove the European influence on Indian prehistory is required. This paper will make an effort towards untangling the Indian prehistory in the light of new evidence and start a dialogue on decolonisation with the help of material culture.

Rafael Abad de los Santos, “An Approach to Japanese Archaeological Historiography. Authors, Trends, and Epistemological Issues”

In recent decades, the history of Japanese archaeology has been the subject of study by various Western authors. However, to date, there is still no essay that has analyzed the historiographical perspective of Japanese scholars regarding the origins and development of their own discipline. This presentation will present the preliminary findings of an analysis of the principal Japanese authors who have discussed this matter, as well as the different issues associated with their approaches.
Chronologically speaking, this analysis will establish four significant stages. The initial historiographical essays on the history of Japanese archaeology were published between 1900 and 1930. These were brief texts written by members of the first generation of modern archaeologists in Japan, such as Yagi Shozaburo and Torii Ryuzo. This stage gave way, in the 1930s, to individual studies conducted by the generation born between the late 19th and early 20th centuries; these attempts did not coalesce into a systematic approach to the history of archaeology. Finally, following the defeat in World War II, two main currents emerged. Broadly speaking, these currents mirrored the two dominant trends in the study of archaeological history in the West: internalism and externalism. Consequently, comprehensive works on the history of archaeology in Japan were produced. The first of these currents viewed the evolution of archaeology primarily as a methodological history, aiming to order the significant events that shaped the development of the discipline. Conversely, the externalist current sought to explain the evolution of archaeology by contextualizing it within the political, social, and economic circumstances of modern Japan. These two currents have exerted a significant influence on historiographical studies since 2000.
Furthermore, it is crucial to acknowledge the existence of several phenomena specific to Japanese archaeological historiography. Firstly, the history of this discipline is intertwined with the history of Japanese anthropology from its origins until the 1940s. Therefore, an approach to the history of this discipline in Japan must also encompass historiographical works on anthropology. Secondly, both currents rest upon a shared interpretative framework that has reduced “Japanese archaeology” to the “archaeology of the Japanese archipelago.” Consequently, neither current has provided a critical reflection on the role played by Japanese archaeologists in the colonial context of the Greater Empire of Japan between 1895 and 1945. This epistemic perspective has subsequently been inherited by scholars born after 1945, who unconsciously assume that the history of Japanese archaeology equates to the history of archaeological studies within the present-day boundaries of Japan.

Sébastien Plutniak, “Writers of Disciplinary Histories: the PhD Dissertations regarding the History of Prehistoric Archaeology (1948-2021) and their Authors”

It is commonplace to state the importance of “meta” approaches in archaeology, namely “theoretical”, “philosophical”, and “historical” investigation about archaeology. The definition and scope of archaeological “theory” and “philosophy” were —and still are— debated; conversely, what the “history of” archaeology is, seems much less controversial. Its importance, for the production of archaeological knowledge in particular, was proclaimed by many scholars (Daniel 1981, Murray2013).
However, historical and social studies of science has long shown the multiple uses of disciplinary history (Graham et al. 1983). There is no reason to think that archaeology is any different from other fields. Writing its history can serve multiple purposes, pursued by actors holding various positions.

Consequently, empirical investigation about who writes its history is required. For three reasons make PhD dissertations regarding the history of archaeology reveal the socio-epistemic relationships between discipline construction and the writing of disciplinary history:

  1. In the 20th century, the doctorate title internationally became a requirement to enter a scientific field, get recognition, and access places in academic institutions (Hulin 1990), (Ehrenberg et al. 2010). Is a “historical” topic acceptable to become a doctor in archaeology?
  2. The writing of disciplinary histories is a practice that is always, in varying degrees, both a contribution to the history of science (as a discipline) and an (un)intentional commitment to the construction of the discipline under study. To which extent writing the history of archaeology is a research effort expected of archaeologists? Or should it be carried out outside the archaeological field?
  3. Social and historical researches on the growth of disciplines usually focus on the formation of disciplinary socio-epistemic “cores” (Mullins 1972). Interestingly, studying the authors of “historical” PhD dissertations gives a view from the margin, from those newcomers trying a tangent way to enter the field. What are their academics and professional trajectories?

All this makes the authors of “historical” PhD dissertations on archaeology of particular interest.
Due to its administrative nature, the process of earning a doctorate creates a paper trail that turns PhD dissertations into relevant historical sources, to trace social relationships, in particular, as demonstrated in previous studies (Bes et al. 2021).

Based on a dataset of 126 PhD dissertations, regarding the history of prehistoric archaeology and defended between 1948 and 2021, this ongoing research offers a prosopographical analysis of their authors. Addressing aspects of their academic careers and networks sheds light on what is, in practice, the social and intellectual status of historical investigations in the evolution of a scientific discipline.

References

  • Bès, Marie-Pierre, Jérôme Lamy, and Marion Maisonobe. 2021. “Peer-Making: The Interconnections Between Phd Thesis Committee Membership and Copublishing.” Quantitative Science Studies 2 (3):1048–70. doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00143.
  • Daniel, Glyn, ed. 1981. Towards a History of Archaeology. London: Thames; Hudson.
  • Ehrenberg, Ronald G., Harriet Zuckerman, Groen Jeffrey A., and Sharon M. Brucker. 2010. Educating Scholars: Doctoral Education in Humanities. Princeton: Princeton University Press. doi: 10.1515/9781400831524.
  • Graham, Loren R., Wolf Lepenies, and Peter Weingart, eds. 1983. Functions and Uses of Disciplinary Histories. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. doi: 10.10071978-94-009-7035-9.
  • Hulin, Nicole. 1990. “Les doctorats dans les disciplines scientifiques au XIXe siècle.” Revue d’histoire des sciences 43 (4):401–26. doi: 10.3406/rhs.1990.4503.
  • Mullins, Nicholas C. 1972. “The Development of a Scientific Specialty: The Phage Group and the Origins of Molecular Biology.” Minerva 10 (1):51–82. doi: 10.1007/BF01881390.
  • Murray, Timothy. 2013. “Why the History of Archaeology Is Essential to Theoretical Archaeology.” Complutum 24 (2):21–31. doi: 10.5209/rev_CMPL.2013.v24.n2.43364.

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Sébastien Plutniak (July 30, 2023). “History of the History of Archaeology: between Archaeologists’ and Historians’ Concerns. Figures, Trends, and Perspectives” panel @ 20th IUPPS Conference, Timişoara, Romania. Historical Studies of Pre & Protohistoric Archaeology. Retrieved October 14, 2024 from https://doi.org/10.58079/pk9a