The Experts below are selected from a list of 720 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Plutniak Sébastien - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Les vertus des études des sciences : retour sur une réception française du postmodernisme en archéologie
    'OpenEdition', 2020
    Co-Authors: Plutniak Sébastien
    Abstract:

    En 1995, Anick Coudart et Laurent Olivier expliquaient la réception française du postmodernisme en archéologie à partir de l’idée que les pratiques scientifiques sont déterminées par des mentalités nationales. Cette idée, fréquente depuis le xixe siècle, a été réinvestie cette dernière décennie en histoire et en sociologie des sciences. Appuyé sur ces travaux, cet article renouvelle l’analyse des développements « théoriques » en archéologie. Les variations nationales dans le développement de la New Archaeology et de la Post-Processual Archaeology sont expliquées, non pas par des mentalités différentes, mais par 1) les dynamiques entre générations académiques, 2) les modèles disciplinaires d’organisation, 3) les statuts accordés aux études des sciences au sein des disciplines scientifiques. L’importance des apports des études des sciences, qui dotent la communauté archéologique de méthodes et de données pour analyser les rapports de forces établis dans la discipline, est finalement défendue.In 1995, Anick Coudart and Laurent Olivier explained the French reception of postmodernism in Archaeology based on the idea that scientific practices are determined by national mentalities. This idea, which has been common since the 19th century, has been reinvested in the history and sociology of science over the past decade. Based on this work, this article renews the analysis of “theoretical” developments in Archaeology. The national variations in the development of New Archaeology and Post-Processual Archaeology are explained, not by different mentalities, but by 1) the dynamics between academic generations, 2) disciplinary models of organization, 3) the status granted to science studies within scientific disciplines. The importance of the contributions of scientific studies, which provide the archaeological community with methods and data to analyse the balance of power established in the discipline, is finally defended

  • Les vertus des études des sciences : retour sur une réception française du postmodernisme en archéologie
    Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, 2019
    Co-Authors: Plutniak Sébastien
    Abstract:

    International audienceEn 1995, Anick Coudart et Laurent Olivier expliquaient la réception française du postmodernisme en archéologie à partir de l’idée que les pratiques scientifiques sont déterminées par des mentalités nationales. Cette idée, fréquente depuis le xixe siècle, a été réinvestie cette dernière décennie en histoire et en sociologie des sciences. Appuyé sur ces travaux, cet article renouvelle l’analyse des développements « théoriques » en archéologie. Les variations nationales dans le développement de la New Archaeology et de la Post-Processual Archaeology sont expliquées, non pas par des mentalités différentes, mais par 1) les dynamiques entre générations académiques, 2) les modèles disciplinaires d’organisation, 3) les statuts accordés aux études des sciences au sein des disciplines scientifiques. L’importance des apports des études des sciences, qui dotent la communauté archéologique de méthodes et de données pour analyser les rapports de forces établis dans la discipline, est finalement défendue

Editorial Conselho - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Museus e antropofagia do patrimônio arqueológico: (des) caminhos da prática brasileira - Camila de Moraes Wichers (2010)
    Edições Universitárias Lusófonas, 2014
    Co-Authors: Editorial Conselho
    Abstract:

    In this thesis we seek to understand the waywardness and disagreements of the dyad Museums / Museology - Archaeological Heritage / Archaeology in Brazil, but above all we seek to identify and construct ways and common factors. We start from an historical approach to this relationship, outlining the mentality that marked the distance between Archaeology and Museology in Brazil. In a second step, we deepen the analysis of this relationships in contemporaneity, marked by a significant increase in the archaeological research, especially those related to environmental licensing of the enterprises. This indicates an approximation of the relationship between the archaeological heritage and developmental issues, implying the option of Sociomuseology. In a third step, we make an analysis of the expografic discourses of the archaeological collections and we return to the museological trials in which we operated. Finally, we apply the perspectives of Sociomuseology in socialization of the archaeological resources of Transnortheastern Railroad, one of the strategic programs of the Brazilian Government. The outlined program is understood as a synthesis of the complex but necessary relationship between Archaeology and Museology in the Brazilian contemporary scene. Thus, one way of overcoming the obstacles outlined throughout the thesis lies in the intertwining between the Sociomuseology and the Post-Processual Archaeology. Key-words: Sociomuseology – Archaeology’s Musealization – Brazilians Museums - Museologic Comunications – Post-Processual ArchaeologyNessa tese, buscamos compreender os descaminhos e desencontros da díade Museus/ Museologia – Patrimônio Arqueológico/ Arqueologia no Brasil, mas, procuramos, acima de tudo, identificar e construir caminhos e encontros. Partimos de uma abordagem histórica dessa relação, delineando as mentalidades que marcaram o distanciamento entre Museologia e Arqueologia no Brasil. Em um segundo momento, aprofundamos a análise dessa relação na contemporaneidade, marcada por um aumento expressivo das pesquisas arqueológicas, sobretudo aquelas relacionadas ao licenciamento ambiental de empreendimentos. Esse fato indica um estreitamento da relação entre patrimônio arqueológico e questões do desenvolvimento, implicando na opção da Sociomuseologia. Em um terceiro movimento, fazemos uma análise de discursos expográficos de acervos arqueológicos, retomando também experimentações museológicas nas quais atuamos. Por fim, aplicamos as perspectivas da Sociomuseologia na concepção de um programa de socialização dos recursos arqueológicos resgatados no âmbito da Ferrovia Transnordestina, uma das obras estratégicas do Governo Federal brasileiro. O programa delineado é entendido enquanto síntese da complexa, mas necessária, teia de relações entre Museologia e Arqueologia no cenário brasileiro contemporâneo. Como caminho de superação dos obstáculos apresentados ao longo da tese, propomos o entrelaçamento entre a Sociomuseologia e as vertentes da arqueologia pós-Processual. Palavras-Chave: Sociomuseologia – Musealização da Arqueologia - Museus brasileiros - Comunicação Museológica - Arqueologia Pós-Processual    

  • Museus e antropofagia do patrimônio arqueológico: (des) caminhos da prática brasileira - Camila de Moraes Wichers
    Edições Universitárias Lusófonas, 2013
    Co-Authors: Editorial Conselho
    Abstract:

    Museus e antropofagia do patrimônio arqueológico: (des) caminhos da prática brasileira Tese de Doutoramento em Museologia de Camila Azevedo de Moraes Wichers (2010) Orientadora: Professora Doutora Maria Cristina Oliveira Bruno (2010) Resumo Nessa tese, buscamos compreender os descaminhos e desencontros da díade Museus/ Museologia – Patrimônio Arqueológico/ Arqueologia no Brasil, mas, procuramos, acima de tudo, identificar e construir caminhos e encontros. Partimos de uma abordagem histórica dessa relação, delineando as mentalidades que marcaram o distanciamento entre Museologia e Arqueologia no Brasil. Em um segundo momento, aprofundamos a análise dessa relação na contemporaneidade, marcada por um aumento expressivo das pesquisas arqueológicas, sobretudo aquelas relacionadas ao licenciamento ambiental de empreendimentos. Esse fato indica um estreitamento da relação entre patrimônio arqueológico e questões do desenvolvimento, implicando na opção da Sociomuseologia. Em um terceiro movimento, fazemos uma análise de discursos expográficos de acervos arqueológicos, retomando também experimentações museológicas nas quais atuamos. Por fim, aplicamos as perspectivas da Sociomuseologia na concepção de um programa de socialização dos recursos arqueológicos resgatados no âmbito da Ferrovia Transnordestina, uma das obras estratégicas do Governo Federal brasileiro. O programa delineado é entendido enquanto síntese da complexa, mas necessária, teia de relações entre Museologia e Arqueologia no cenário brasileiro contemporâneo. Como caminho de superação dos obstáculos apresentados ao longo da tese, propomos o entrelaçamento entre a Sociomuseologia e as vertentes da arqueologia pós-Processual. Palavras-Chave: Sociomuseologia – Musealização da Arqueologia - Museus brasileiros - Comunicação Museológica - Arqueologia Pós-Processual Abstract In this thesis we seek to understand the waywardness and disagreements of the dyad Museums / Museology - Archaeological Heritage / Archaeology in Brazil, but above all we seek to identify and construct ways and common factors. We start from an historical approach to this relationship, outlining the mentality that marked the distance between Archaeology and Museology in Brazil. In a second step, we deepen the analysis of this relationships in contemporaneity, marked by a significant increase in the archaeological research, especially those related to environmental licensing of the enterprises. This indicates an approximation of the relationship between the archaeological heritage and developmental issues, implying the option of Sociomuseology. In a third step, we make an analysis of the expografic discourses of the archaeological collections and we return to the museological trials in which we operated. Finally, we apply the perspectives of Sociomuseology in socialization of the archaeological resources of Transnortheastern Railroad, one of the strategic programs of the Brazilian Government. The outlined program is understood as a synthesis of the complex but necessary relationship between Archaeology and Museology in the Brazilian contemporary scene. Thus, one way of overcoming the obstacles outlined throughout the thesis lies in the intertwining between the Sociomuseology and the Post-Processual Archaeology. Key-words: Sociomuseology – Archaeology’s Musealization – Brazilians Museums - Museologic Comunications – Post-Processual Archaeolog

Pedraza Marín Diego - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • El concepto de prestigio en sociedades cazadoras-recolectoras: Una aproximación etnoarqueológica
    'Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona', 2016
    Co-Authors: Pedraza Marín Diego
    Abstract:

    El presente trabajo analiza el uso tradicional del concepto de prestigio en arqueología prehistórica y plantea una definición susceptible de aplicación en la disciplina, fundamentada desde el materialismo histórico en su revisión feminista de las últimas décadas. Tras el primer capítulo, de carácter introductorio, procedemos a efectuar una revisión de la bibliografía arqueológica para documentar las diversas formas en que se ha abordado el prestigio, al menos desde mitad del siglo XX. En términos generales constatamos que el prestigio raras veces se define, se emplea de una forma ambigua o no se hace referencia a alguna definición previa. Salvo excepciones, se utiliza de una forma acrítica, desde un bagaje compartido por la/os investigadora/es. En primer lugar analizamos las aportaciones más relevantes efectuadas desde el neoevolucionismo, la ecología cultural y los enfoques sistémicos, desarrollados en EE.UU. desde mitad del pasado siglo por la antropología cultural y la arqueología, disciplinas con una estrecha interrelación allí no comparable en Europa. Desde estos paradigmas, el estudio de la evolución de las sociedades prehistóricas se vio dotado con nuevas herramientas metodológicas y nuevas categorías de análisis, en algunos casos actualmente vigentes. Los estudios etnográficos de sociedades cazadoras, recolectoras y pescadoras, así como los trabajos realizados por la arqueología procesual sobre las sociedades prehistóricas, se retroalimentaron mutuamente en la producción de un corpus empírico, teórico y metodológico, para explicar la evolución de las sociedades humanas. Se crearon tipologías clasificatorias bajo una perspectiva evolucionista, desarrollando categorías analíticas para distinguir las sociedades según su grado de ‘simplicidad’ o de ‘complejidad’. Dichas tipologías se elaboraron sobre aspectos relacionados con las diferentes formas de subsistencia y sobre la organización política. Esta última fue explicada desde la aparición de determinados personajes, con apelativos como ‘big men’, ‘jefes’, ‘líderes’, etc., que organizaban y hasta cierto punto controlaban la producción, la distribución o incluso el intercambio, acumulando con ello ‘prestigio’. Se habla así de ‘economías de prestigio’, ‘objetos de prestigio’ o ‘personas con prestigio’. Constatamos que bajo estos planteamientos existe una influencia, a menudo obviada, de la sociología del poder de Max Weber, en sus aportaciones de inicios del siglo XX. Términos como ‘estatus’ o ‘liderazgo carismático’ aparecen de forma continua en los trabajos arqueológicos. Asimismo, se emplean los términos ‘estatus’ y ‘rol’, según la aportación del antropólogo Ralph Linton en los años 30 del siglo XX. La ruptura epistemológica que supuso la arqueología postprocesual no implicó un cambio en la manera de tratar el prestigio. Si bien se introdujeron nuevas formas de análisis, donde lo simbólico adquirió un papel destacado y la interpretación sustituyó a la explicación, siguieron empleándose términos como ‘prestigio’ o ‘estatus’ con pocas variaciones. En el capítulo 3 presentamos un análisis epistemológico poniendo de relieve la importancia de las categorías empleadas, pues a menudo subyacen principios ontológicos y políticos que suelen permanecer ocultos, dado su carácter implícito. Finalmente, en el capítulo 4 proponemos una definición de prestigio desde una aproximación fundamentada en el materialismo histórico en su revisión por algunas propuestas feministas de las últimas décadas. Entendemos el prestigio como una ‘producción social’, ya sea de objetos o de personas. Planteamos que el prestigio en modo alguno es el resultado de la biología humana, o de una psicología individual, ni resultado de una determinada lógica o racionalidad económica. Entendemos el prestigio desde la producción y la reproducción sociales, como un producto y al mismo tiempo como un instrumento, que permite la producción y la reproducción de la vida social y con ello su pervivencia en el tiempo.This work analyzes the traditional use of the concept of prestige in prehistoric Archaeology and offers a definition for application in the discipline, based on historical materialism in its feminist revision of recent decades. Following the first chapter, of an introductory character, we proceed to review the archaeological bibliography in order to document the ways in which prestige has been addressed, at least since the second half of the twentieth century. In general, we find that prestige is rarely defined, or that it is used in an ambiguous way, or there are no references to any previous definition. With few exceptions, it is used in an uncritical way derived from researchers’ common assumptions. First, we analyze the most important contributions made by neoevolutionism, cultural ecology and systemic approaches developed in the U.S. since the middle of the last century by cultural anthropology and Archaeology, two disciplines far more closely intertwined in the U.S. than in Europe. From these paradigms, the study of the evolution of prehistoric societies was endowed with new methodologies and new categories of analysis which, in some cases, are still in use. Ethnographic studies of hunting, gathering and fishing societies, as well as the work carried out by Processual Archaeology of prehistoric societies, interacted with each other to produce an empirical, theoretical and methodological corpus to explain the evolution of human societies. Classificatory typologies were created under an evolutionary perspective, developing analytical categories to distinguish societies according to their degree of ‘simplicity’ or ‘complexity’. These typologies were developed based on the different aspects related to livelihoods and political organization. The latter was explained by the appearance of certain characters with names like ‘big men’, ‘chiefs’, ‘leaders’, etc. who organized and, to some extent, controlled production, distribution or exchange, thereby accumulating ‘prestige’. Thus, one may speak about ‘prestige economies’, ‘prestige objects’ or ‘prestigious people’. We note that these approaches have been influenced by the often overlooked contributions of Max Weber’s sociology of power, dating from the early twentieth century. Terms like ‘status’ or ‘charismatic leadership’ continuously appear in archaeological works. Similarly, in the 1930s, the anthropologist Ralph Linton contributed the terms ‘status’ and ‘role’ which are still in use. The epistemological break caused by postProcessual Archaeology did not imply a change in the understanding of prestige. While new forms of analysis were introduced, such as the symbolic acquiring a leading role and interpretation replacing explanation, terms such as ‘prestige’ or ‘status’ continued to be used with few variations. In chapter 3 we present an epistemological analysis, highlighting the importance of the categories employed given that there are often underlying ontological and political principles that usually remain hidden by virtue of their implicit character. Finally, in chapter 4 we propose a definition of prestige from an approach based on historical materialism proposed by some feminists in last few decades. We understand prestige as a ‘social production’, be it of objects or people. We propose that prestige is by no means the result of human biology, nor of individual psychology, nor is it a result of a certain economic rationality or logic. We understand prestige in terms of social production and reproduction, as a product and, at the same time, as a tool, which allows for the production and reproduction of social life and its survival over time

  • El Concepto de prestigio en sociedades cazadoras-recolectoras una aproximación etnoarqueológica /
    [Bellaterra] : Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2016
    Co-Authors: Pedraza Marín Diego, Universitat Autònoma De Barcelona. Departament De Prehistòria
    Abstract:

    El presente trabajo analiza el uso tradicional del concepto de prestigio en arqueología prehistórica y plantea una definición susceptible de aplicación en la disciplina, fundamentada desde el materialismo histórico en su revisión feminista de las últimas décadas. Tras el primer capítulo, de carácter introductorio, procedemos a efectuar una revisión de la bibliografía arqueológica para documentar las diversas formas en que se ha abordado el prestigio, al menos desde mitad del siglo XX. En términos generales constatamos que el prestigio raras veces se define, se emplea de una forma ambigua o no se hace referencia a alguna definición previa. Salvo excepciones, se utiliza de una forma acrítica, desde un bagaje compartido por la/os investigadora/es. En primer lugar analizamos las aportaciones más relevantes efectuadas desde el neoevolucionismo, la ecología cultural y los enfoques sistémicos, desarrollados en EE.UU. desde mitad del pasado siglo por la antropología cultural y la arqueología, disciplinas con una estrecha interrelación allí no comparable en Europa. Desde estos paradigmas, el estudio de la evolución de las sociedades prehistóricas se vio dotado con nuevas herramientas metodológicas y nuevas categorías de análisis, en algunos casos actualmente vigentes. Los estudios etnográficos de sociedades cazadoras, recolectoras y pescadoras, así como los trabajos realizados por la arqueología procesual sobre las sociedades prehistóricas, se retroalimentaron mutuamente en la producción de un corpus empírico, teórico y metodológico, para explicar la evolución de las sociedades humanas. Se crearon tipologías clasificatorias bajo una perspectiva evolucionista, desarrollando categorías analíticas para distinguir las sociedades según su grado de 'simplicidad' o de 'complejidad'. Dichas tipologías se elaboraron sobre aspectos relacionados con las diferentes formas de subsistencia y sobre la organización política. Esta última fue explicada desde la aparición de determinados personajes, con apelativos como 'big men', 'jefes', 'líderes', etc., que organizaban y hasta cierto punto controlaban la producción, la distribución o incluso el intercambio, acumulando con ello 'prestigio'. Se habla así de 'economías de prestigio', 'objetos de prestigio' o 'personas con prestigio'. Constatamos que bajo estos planteamientos existe una influencia, a menudo obviada, de la sociología del poder de Max Weber, en sus aportaciones de inicios del siglo XX. Términos como 'estatus' o 'liderazgo carismático' aparecen de forma continua en los trabajos arqueológicos. Asimismo, se emplean los términos 'estatus' y 'rol', según la aportación del antropólogo Ralph Linton en los años 30 del siglo XX. La ruptura epistemológica que supuso la arqueología postprocesual no implicó un cambio en la manera de tratar el prestigio. Si bien se introdujeron nuevas formas de análisis, donde lo simbólico adquirió un papel destacado y la interpretación sustituyó a la explicación, siguieron empleándose términos como 'prestigio' o 'estatus' con pocas variaciones. En el capítulo 3 presentamos un análisis epistemológico poniendo de relieve la importancia de las categorías empleadas, pues a menudo subyacen principios ontológicos y políticos que suelen permanecer ocultos, dado su carácter implícito. Finalmente, en el capítulo 4 proponemos una definición de prestigio desde una aproximación fundamentada en el materialismo histórico en su revisión por algunas propuestas feministas de las últimas décadas. Entendemos el prestigio como una 'producción social', ya sea de objetos o de personas. Planteamos que el prestigio en modo alguno es el resultado de la biología humana, o de una psicología individual, ni resultado de una determinada lógica o racionalidad económica. Entendemos el prestigio desde la producción y la reproducción sociales, como un producto y al mismo tiempo como un instrumento, que permite la producción y la reproducción de la vida social y con ello su pervivencia en el tiempo.This work analyzes the traditional use of the concept of prestige in prehistoric Archaeology and offers a definition for application in the discipline, based on historical materialism in its feminist revision of recent decades. Following the first chapter, of an introductory character, we proceed to review the archaeological bibliography in order to document the ways in which prestige has been addressed, at least since the second half of the twentieth century. In general, we find that prestige is rarely defined, or that it is used in an ambiguous way, or there are no references to any previous definition. With few exceptions, it is used in an uncritical way derived from researchers' common assumptions. First, we analyze the most important contributions made by neoevolutionism, cultural ecology and systemic approaches developed in the U.S. since the middle of the last century by cultural anthropology and Archaeology, two disciplines far more closely intertwined in the U.S. than in Europe. From these paradigms, the study of the evolution of prehistoric societies was endowed with new methodologies and new categories of analysis which, in some cases, are still in use. Ethnographic studies of hunting, gathering and fishing societies, as well as the work carried out by Processual Archaeology of prehistoric societies, interacted with each other to produce an empirical, theoretical and methodological corpus to explain the evolution of human societies. Classificatory typologies were created under an evolutionary perspective, developing analytical categories to distinguish societies according to their degree of 'simplicity' or 'complexity'. These typologies were developed based on the different aspects related to livelihoods and political organization. The latter was explained by the appearance of certain characters with names like 'big men', 'chiefs', 'leaders', etc. who organized and, to some extent, controlled production, distribution or exchange, thereby accumulating 'prestige'. Thus, one may speak about 'prestige economies', 'prestige objects' or 'prestigious people'. We note that these approaches have been influenced by the often overlooked contributions of Max Weber's sociology of power, dating from the early twentieth century. Terms like 'status' or 'charismatic leadership' continuously appear in archaeological works. Similarly, in the 1930s, the anthropologist Ralph Linton contributed the terms 'status' and 'role' which are still in use. The epistemological break caused by postProcessual Archaeology did not imply a change in the understanding of prestige. While new forms of analysis were introduced, such as the symbolic acquiring a leading role and interpretation replacing explanation, terms such as 'prestige' or 'status' continued to be used with few variations. In chapter 3 we present an epistemological analysis, highlighting the importance of the categories employed given that there are often underlying ontological and political principles that usually remain hidden by virtue of their implicit character. Finally, in chapter 4 we propose a definition of prestige from an approach based on historical materialism proposed by some feminists in last few decades. We understand prestige as a 'social production', be it of objects or people. We propose that prestige is by no means the result of human biology, nor of individual psychology, nor is it a result of a certain economic rationality or logic. We understand prestige in terms of social production and reproduction, as a product and, at the same time, as a tool, which allows for the production and reproduction of social life and its survival over time

Demoule Jean-paul - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Les nouvelles de l’archéologie, la théorie et l’action : la crise de la quarantaine n’est pas inéluctable !
    'OpenEdition', 2020
    Co-Authors: Coudart Anick, Demoule Jean-paul
    Abstract:

    Cet article se propose de revenir sur la genèse et les objectifs de la création, au début des années 1980, des Nouvelles de l’archéologie, revue qui devint rapidement un carrefour obligé des débats internes à l’archéologie. Outre son importance pour la circulation et la diffusion des informations professionnelles, la rédaction s’est beaucoup intéressée aux problèmes méthodologiques et théoriques. En reprenant un article de 1980, suivi par plusieurs autres, on éclaire la situation des débats théoriques sur la discipline en France, leur évolution face à la New Archaeology puis à l’archéologie post-processuelle des pays anglo-saxons. On rappelle enfin la place considérable prise récemment par l’archéologie préventive, sa construction, sa défense et son manque de moyens pour l’étude et la publication, tandis que les recherches archéologiques sur les problèmes environnementaux, les effondrements, les inégalités, la violence, etc., sont parties prenantes des débats sociétaux les plus actuels et les plus aigus.This article proposes to revisit the origins and objectives of the creation at the start of the 1980s of the journal Les Nouvelles de l’archéologie, a journal that rapidly became an inevitable crossroads for debates relating to Archaeology. Besides its importance for the circulation and diffusion of professional information, the journal has been very much interested in methodological and theoretical issues. Taking up again a 1980 article, followed by several others, we shed light on the situation of theoretical debates on the discipline in France, their development in relation to the New Archaeology then the post-Processual Archaeology of anglophone countries. Lastly we recall the considerable place taken recently by preventive Archaeology, its construction, its defence and its lack of means for study and publication, at a time when research stemming from Archaeology (environmental problems, collapse, inequalities, violence, etc.) is increasingly involved in today's most intensive societal debates

  • Cultures, peuples, groupes … et gènes
    AFEAF, 2020
    Co-Authors: Demoule Jean-paul
    Abstract:

    International audienceWhen archaeologists studying societies without texts began to organise their data in the 19th century, they created “boxes” called “cultures” (Kultur in German) or “civilisations”, defined by “type fossils” (Leitfossil) following an almost explicitly geological paradigm. These “cultures” were nevertheless considered also as biological entities, able to reproduce themselves, or even combine. Gustaf Kossinna took a decisive step by assimilating “archaeological cultures” with “peoples”. Today, one can distinguish two extreme positions, illustrated by the debate on the “Celts”: either cultures really exist as human groups that can be defined, which is the majority view in central and eastern Europe; or cultures are a pure fabrication on the part of the observer, and represent at best broad stylistic zones, which is a common view in the Archaeology of English-speaking countries and their near neighbours. The latter is a perspective which was emphasised even more by so-called “post-Processual” Archaeology. Reality no doubt lies somewhere between these two extremes, but is also linked to what can be reconstructed of the underlying ancient societies and their degrees of political integration. Yet in recent years, palaeogenetics has joined the game, hoping to reconstruct population migrations, if not “peoples”, with the risk of reproducing, by biological determinism, the models of thinking of 19th century craniometry. The debate goes on!Lorsque les archéologues des sociétés sans écriture ont commencé à ordonner leurs données au cours du XIXe siècle, ils ont constitué des « boîtes » portant le nom de « cultures » (Kultur en allemand) ou de « civilisations », définies par des « fossiles directeurs » (Leitfossil) selon un paradigme presque explicitement géologique. Ces « cultures » étaient néanmoins considérées également comme des entités biologiques, susceptibles de se générer les unes les autres, voire de se combiner. Gustaf Kossinna franchira un pas décisif en assimilant « culture archéologique » et « peuple ». Aujourd’hui, on peut distinguer deux positions extrêmes : soit les cultures existent réellement en tant que groupes humains et peuvent être définies, position majoritaire en Europe centrale et orientale ; soit les cultures sont une pure fiction de l’observateur, et au mieux des zones stylistiques approximatives, position fréquente dans l’archéologie des pays anglo-saxons et de leurs marges, et qui fut accentuée encore par l’archéologie dite « post-processuelle ». La réalité est sans doute entre ces deux extrêmes. Mais ces dernières années, la paléogénétique est entrée dans le jeu, espérant reconstituer les migrations de populations, sinon de « peuples », avec le risque de reproduire, par déterminisme biologique, les modèles de raisonnement de la craniométrie du XIXe siècle. Le débat continue

Taylor Barry - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Humans in the Environment: Plants, Animals and Landscapes in Mesolithic Britain and Ireland
    'Springer Science and Business Media LLC', 2019
    Co-Authors: Overton, Nick J., Taylor Barry
    Abstract:

    From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: registration 2018-04-25, online 2018-05-29, epub 2018-05-29, ppub 2018-09Publication status: PublishedAbstractEnvironmental Archaeology has historically been central to Mesolithic studies in Britain and Ireland. Whilst Processual Archaeology was concerned with the economic significance of the environment, post-Processual Archaeology later rejected economically driven narratives, resulting in a turn away from plant and animal remains. Post-Processual narratives focused instead on enigmatic ‘ritual’ items that economic accounts struggled to suitably explain. Processual accounts of landscapes, grounded in economic determinism, were also rejected in favour of explorations of their sociocultural aspects. However, in moving away from plant and animal remains, such accounts lacked the ability to rigorously explore the specificities of particular landscapes and humans actions within them. This paper will bridge this gap by considering how palaeoecological and zooarchaeological analyses can be used to explore human interactions with plants and animals, which were key in developing understandings and relationships that ultimately structured landscapes, influenced past human actions and shaped archaeological assemblages

  • Humans in the Environment: Plants, Animals and Landscapes in Mesolithic Britain and Ireland
    'Springer Science and Business Media LLC', 2018
    Co-Authors: Overton, Nick J., Taylor Barry
    Abstract:

    The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10963-018-9116-0Environmental Archaeology has historically been central to Mesolithic studies in Britain and Ireland. Whilst Processual Archaeology was concerned with the economic significance of the environment, post-Processual Archaeology later rejected economically driven narratives, resulting in a turn away from plant and animal remains. Post-Processual narratives focused instead on enigmatic ‘ritual’ items that economic accounts struggled to suitably explain. Processual accounts of landscapes, grounded in economic determinism, were also rejected in favour of explorations of their sociocultural aspects. However, in moving away from plant and animal remains, such accounts lacked the ability to rigorously explore the specificities of particular landscapes and humans actions within them. This paper will bridge this gap by considering how palaeoecological and zooarchaeological analyses can be used to explore human interactions with plants and animals, which were key in developing understandings and relationships that ultimately structured landscapes, influenced past human actions and shaped archaeological assemblages

  • Humans in the Environment: Plants, Animals and Landscapes in Mesolithic Britain and Ireland
    'Springer Science and Business Media LLC', 2018
    Co-Authors: Overton, Nick J., Taylor Barry
    Abstract:

    From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications Router.Publication status: PublishedHistory: epub 2018-05-29, ppub 2018-09AbstractEnvironmental Archaeology has historically been central to Mesolithic studies in Britain and Ireland. Whilst Processual Archaeology was concerned with the economic significance of the environment, post-Processual Archaeology later rejected economically driven narratives, resulting in a turn away from plant and animal remains. Post-Processual narratives focused instead on enigmatic ‘ritual’ items that economic accounts struggled to suitably explain. Processual accounts of landscapes, grounded in economic determinism, were also rejected in favour of explorations of their sociocultural aspects. However, in moving away from plant and animal remains, such accounts lacked the ability to rigorously explore the specificities of particular landscapes and humans actions within them. This paper will bridge this gap by considering how palaeoecological and zooarchaeological analyses can be used to explore human interactions with plants and animals, which were key in developing understandings and relationships that ultimately structured landscapes, influenced past human actions and shaped archaeological assemblages