Diverse histories and meta-narratives.

Diverse histories and meta-narratives. PETER ROWLEY-CONWY. From Genesis to prehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to : the archaeologicalThree Age System and its contested reception in Denmark, Britain, andIreland. xx+362 pages, 55 illustrations. 2007. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress; 978-0-19-922-774-7 hardback 65 [pounds sterling]. MARGARITA DIAZ-ANDREU. A world history of nineteenth-centuryarchaeology: nationalism, colonialism, and the past (Oxford Studies inthe History of Archaeology The history of archaeology has been one of increasing professionalisation, and the use of an increasing range of techniques, to obtain as much data on the site being examined as possible. OriginsThe exact origins of archaeology as a discipline are uncertain. ). xiv+486 pages, 5 maps. 2007. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press; 978-0-19-9217175 hardback 70 [pounds sterling]. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] The sheer bulk of the 2006 revised second edition of the late BruceTrigger's A history of archaeological thought--almost double thelength of the 1989 original and with many additional references--tellsof what a blossoming there has been in the history of archaeology overthe intervening decades. Whereas once only a very occasional theme ofTAG conferences, the subject is now firmly on the agenda, has fullytaken root and 'arrived'. Indeed, as well as to Alain Schnapp(e.g. 1993) and the AREA archives project (see Antiquity 76 specialsection edited by Schlanger 2002; also Schlanger & Nordbladh 2008),its fostering certainly owes much to Bruce. As opposed to Daniel's(e.g. 1975) and Klindt-Jensen's (also 1975) earlier'meta-narratives', amongst the key tenets of this matured'new' historiography is that it is now a matter of histories,with the emphasis on the plural attesting to the diversity ofapproaches. Rowley-Conwy's and Diaz-Andreu's volumes well reflectthis, if for no other reason than that they differ so much from eachother. Invariably in��var��i��a��ble?adj.Not changing or subject to change; constant.in��vari��a��bil there is overlap between the two: theinterrelationship in��ter��re��late?tr. & intr.v. in��ter��re��lat��ed, in��ter��re��lat��ing, in��ter��re��latesTo place in or come into mutual relationship.in between archaeology and nineteenth-century nationalismis central to both and, indeed, Rowley-Conwy's theme--the diversereception and uptake of the Three Age System in Denmark, England,Scotland and Ireland--is also covered in Diaz-Andreu's volume, butthere in less than ten of its 400+ pages of text. In contrast to the dense 'packing' of the latter,Rowley-Conwy's From Genesis to prehistory proceeds at almost aleisurely pace, having sufficient space to thoroughly explore its themesand is well-illustrated throughout. Let's not beat around the bush,it is a fine and mature work, and its story unfolds with the kind ofsubtlety you would expect from an author versed in the primary sourcesand fluent in Danish (it includes appendices of hitherto untranslatedsource-material). Aside from its primary source-detail, what makes thisa 'new history' is its underlying emphasis on scholasticnetworks as well as the technologies of the day (i.e. print runs andrailway networks)--in short, the wider social context of knowledgeproduction. Given the pivotal status of its theme, the bare bones of the storywill be familiar to most, but there is much here that is new: theapostatising role of Worsaae as the prime propagator of Thomsen'ssystem (the 'predator' in the assault against schools ofthought rooted in ancient history or the mythological past); or theimportance of Steenstrup's environmental chronology (time depth asreflected in the forest-succession record of Scandinavia's bogs asopposed to the dominant Brixham Cave or French quarry-gravels 'deeptime' narrative). Underpinning the 'Three Ages tale' isits subsequent Four Nations-acceptance, and the varying role of the pastin the constitution of their respective nationalisms: from thenear-parallel cases of Denmark and Scotland (both falling just beyondthe pale of the Roman world which otherwise separates prehistory fromthe historical/medieval present), to the extreme reliance on'native' written sources in Ireland, whose textualconservatism resulted in the non-acceptance of 'the system'until the 1890s. With its burgeoning overseas empire, England provedtypically idiosyncratic id��i��o��syn��cra��sy?n. pl. id��i��o��syn��cra��sies1. A structural or behavioral characteristic peculiar to an individual or group.2. A physiological or temperamental peculiarity.3. (and is duly awarded two chapters as opposed tothe other nations' one each). Until the 1850s, emphasisingethnology ethnology(ĕthnŏl`əjē), scientific study of the origin and functioning of human cultures. It is usually considered one of the major branches of cultural anthropology, the other two being anthropological archaeology and , England proved unreceptive; thereafter, with the 'deeptime' revolution of Prestwich/Evans and Lubbock, the Three AgeSystem helped to fill the resultant 'time gap' and was widelyaccepted, albeit almost incidentally via the chronological backdoor See trapdoor. . If prompted to identify ah ancestor for Rowley-Conwy's volume,Piggott's well-crafted essays (e.g. 1976) might be cited. What thenof our second book, A world history of nineteenth-century archaeology?Though Rowley-Conwy's history still has its'heroes'--Thomsen, Worsaae and Greenwell--this is not true ofDiaz-Andreu's. One can only admire the incredible range of herscholarship and acknowledge the ambition of the book's academicproject: 'This book offers a comprehensive history of globalarchaeology, that is, one that considers all its fields throughout theworld, during the nineteenth century' (p. 22). By necessity itproceeds at a relentless pace amid a whirlwind of sources, leavinglittle space for digression or detail. Accordingly, even when somethingoutside the expected nationalist/imperialist norm occurs, such asMexico's International School of Archaeology and Ethnology of1911-14, it affords no scope to explore what it actually involves. While having distant affinities to such works as Wolf's greatEurope and people without history (1982) or even Hobsbawm's Nationsand nationalism Nations and Nationalism is a scholarly interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal on nationalism. It is published quarterly on behalf of the Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism, by Blackwell Publishers, and is available online via Blackwell Synergy. since 1780 (1990; and, obviously, also Hobsbawm &Ranger 1983), in many respects the book is most akin to Said'sOrientalism (1978), which is widely cited in Diaz-Andreu's text(with Murray's Encyclopaedia of 2001 a 'disputed'ancestor-text). Yes, certainly a thorough survey of its themes, but onethat is judgemental, condemning most of the discipline'sachievements for its complacency within the state/imperialistenterprise. Unlike the first book reviewed here, A world history issimply not a pleasure to read. Keeping to its tight schedule, by thetime its final conclusions are reached you don't feel thatyou've actually learned much (it is not propelled by curiosity),nor had your disciplinary world-view seriously shaken. Its problems are essentially two-fold and relate to matters ofcontent and conviction. First, there is the determination of its scope.Its breathless survey-coverage means that, for the most part, the textis list-like: nothing can be considered in any detail (apart from ahandful of maps, the volume is completely unillustrated). Only in thefinal chapter does agency get a mention and the interrelationshipbetween the individual scholar/archaeologist and the state explored;archaeological content and any generation of 'knowledge' aregiven short-shrift and, instead, socio-political context is well-nighall. Given the volume's breadth--from Japan to Mexico--it isinevitable that much of it must rely upon secondary sources and, howevernecessary, unfamiliarity with primary materials results in rathergeneric modes of interpretation. Secondly, as a scholar, Diaz-Andreu is prone to hard-edgecategorisation and accordingly pronounces upon 'civic' and'ethnic' nationalisms, 'formal' and'informal' imperialism/colonialism (with Britain--alongsideAmerica--again proving atypical), and variously 'hybrid'archaeologies. Yes, there must be broader trends and not everything canamount to an individual/national case-study. Yet such pigeon-holingresults in analytical categories made up of just two or three elementsand can seem arbitrary; such a basis can only suggest propensity burcertainly not support firm conclusions. It is also difficult to understand Diaz-Andreu's motivation:what is archaeology damned by? Is it merely by its position withincontemporary history? Even more telling is Diaz-Andreu's ambivalentattitude towards later nineteenth-century science and positivism positivism(pŏ`zĭtĭvĭzəm), philosophical doctrine that denies any validity to speculation or metaphysics. Sometimes associated with empiricism, positivism maintains that metaphysical questions are unanswerable and that the only . Theyare, of course, indicted as singularly western modes of discourse, butultimately provide the one mechanism to escape the cultural relativism Cultural relativism is the principle that ones beliefs and activities should be interpreted in terms of ones own culture. This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by of interpretation--measured from a western and/or 'highcivilisations' perspective--whether by indigenous/national orinternational/colonial 'players'. What makes the book a'new history' (aside from its underlying agenda) is its focuson the response of the non-western 'other' to the importationof archaeology. This is a theme that clearly warrants much more detailedstudy in the wake of Diaz-Andreu's thrust and is undoubtedly apromising perspective on the development and spread of archaeology. Letus hope this will be a task widely shouldered by non-western scholars,for, in the end, A world history is itself another meta-narrative (ifone antithetical an��ti��thet��i��cal? also an��ti��thet��icadj.1. Of, relating to, or marked by antithesis.2. Being in diametrical opposition. See Synonyms at opposite. to earlier celebratory readings of thediscipline's history). It essentially remains a single-strand storyand admits little diversity, with the unifying thread being theimposition of archaeology as a western project. There we have it: Rowley-Conwy's close-scoping as opposed toDiaz-Andreu's wide-ranging 'motivated' survey, and it ishard to imagine two more different histories of archaeology concernedwith the nineteenth century. Age-perspective will probably determinewhich you would prefer to read. Yet no participant in this growing fieldcan afford to ignore either, and their variance does itself attest tothe current vibrancy of the discipline's historiography-amazingly,there is suddenly a choice of historical approaches! Certainly OxfordUniversity Press must be applauded for having embarked upon apublication series dedicated to the subject, just as it must now beacknowledged that Durham University (where both authors work) has forgeditself into a leading centre for the study of archaeology'shistoriography. References DANIEL, G. 1975. A hundred and fifty years of archaeology. London:Duckworth. HOBSBAWM, E.J. 1990. Nations and nationalism since 1780: programme,myth, reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press (known colloquially as CUP) is a publisher given a Royal Charter by Henry VIII in 1534, and one of the two privileged presses (the other being Oxford University Press). . HOBSBAWM, E. & T. RANGER 1983. The invention of tradition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KLINDT-JENSEN, O. 1975. A history of Scandinavian archaeology.London: Thames & Hudson. MURRAY, T. (ed.). 2001. Encyclopedia of archaeology: history anddiscoveries. Santa Barbara (CA): ABC-Clio. PIGGOTT, S. 1976. Ruins in a landscape: essays in antiquarianism an��ti��quar��i��an?n.One who studies, collects, or deals in antiquities.adj.1. Of or relating to antiquarians or to the study or collecting of antiquities.2. Dealing in or having to do with old or rare books. .Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Edinburgh University Press is a university publisher that is part of the University of Edinburgh in Edinburgh, Scotland. External linksEdinburgh University Press . SAID, E. 1978. Orientalism. New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of : Pantheon. SCHLANGER, N. 2002. Ancestral archives: explorations in the historyof archaeology. Antiquity 76: 127-31. SCHLANGER, N. & J. NORDBLADH (ed.) 2008. Archives, ancestors,practices: archaeology in the light of its history. Oxford: Berghahn. SCHNAPP, A. 1993. The discovery of the past. London: British Museum British Museum,the national repository in London for treasures in science and art. Located in the Bloomsbury section of the city, it has departments of antiquities, prints and drawings, coins and medals, and ethnography. Press. TRIGGER, B. 2006. A history of archaeological thought (secondrevised edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. WOLF, E.R. 1982. Europe and people without history. Berkeley (CA):University of California Press "UC Press" redirects here, but this is also an abbreviation for University of Chicago PressUniversity of California Press, also known as UC Press, is a publishing house associated with the University of California that engages in academic publishing. . Christopher Evans * * Cambridge Archaeological Unit, Department of Archaeology,University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3DZ, UK (Email:cje30@cam.ac.uk)