Oscar Moro Abadia. Arqueologia prehistorica e historia de la ciencia: bacia una historia critica de la arqueologia.

Alonso, Francisco Gracia

OSCAR MORO ABADIA. Arqueologia prehistorica e historia de la ciencia: bacia una historia critica de la arqueologia. 310 pages. 2007. Barcelona: Bellaterra; 978-84-7290-379-1 paperback 22 [euro].

Studying how interpretative currents shift in the fields of prehistory and archaeology cannot be done without addressing the political, social and economic determinants of the rime and place in which their theoretical foundations have been laid or in which they are being applied and developed. Archaeology, like any science, is neither pure nor objective. Rather, it grows out of a subjectivism that may or may not be conscious. The author of this work, looking at the history of archaeology as a science, starts by comparing the two major theoretical currents that have held sway in historiographical studies: presentism and internalism. Presentism uses the rationality of the present to judge the past, defining a sphere of superiority that tends to undervalue the nature and quality of past evidence. It simplifies pre-scientific or antiquarian archaeology and positivist scientific archaeology in order to trace a single line of development in archaeological interpretation. Internalism, on the other hand, is built on a belief in the autonomy of science and the premise of empiricism, which started out by overthrowing context and eventually came to enthrone a neutral discipline cordoned off from any influences.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The problem in constructing a genuine history of archaeology untethered from professional, corporate or school-specific factors stems from the fact that archaeological historiography has been written more by archaeologists than by historians. Although archaeologists are knowledgeable about the configuration of the data, they lack the perspective needed for a wider ranging view of how theoretical currents change and develop. By contrast, historians wield the necessary method but obviously lack the advantages of the archaeologists. Such a differentiation can and must be made in the specific training received in their countries of origin by those who define themselves as prehistorians or archaeologists, because in many places the differentiation between archaeological/historical science, technique and method does not exist and the preparation is all-purpose in nature. A history of archaeology examining the sources that it employs, whether documentary or oral, makes use of the same procedures and has the same aims as any other speciality within the field of History of Science: reconstructing and explaining the facts of a near or distant past. Anything else lacking rigour and scientific methodology should not be viewed as history, but as hagiography.

At the heart of Oscar Moro's undertaking here lies a renewed call for the need to write a critical history of archaeology. Moro argues for a new history that is useful not only in explaining the processes of the past, but also in providing a focal point for contemporary research, as archaeologists come to grasp both their intellectual underpinnings and the need to interpret the influence exercised by the past over the present. When, in the 1990s, positivism and procedural archaeology lost sway conceptually as the interpretative foundations of archaeology and the potentially political and ideological nature of archaeological analysis came to be acknowledged, interest arose in studying and understanding the History of Archaeology through multiple lenses, a development which was noted by archaeologists themselves. Once past the early stages of internalist-externalist and colonialist-nationalist debates, interest grew and began to flourish in studying the past of archaeological science, and that has proven fruitful in leading to the reassessment of documentary evidence as a necessary basis for analysis in research projects. Projects like the AREA (Archives of European Archaeology) project, in fact, make it possible not only to reinterpret already published documentations, but also to systematise the primary material on which the future of the discipline must be built. The fact that so many archaeologists are expressing interest in the history of their discipline has helped to advance a new History of Archaeology that is, as Moro points out, endowed with a critical reflectivity to enable us to understand how and why, up to the present day, this history has taken the form that it has. Moro's reflection takes us past dogmatism, clearing the way for a discipline in the future that, in the words of Trigger (who prefaces Moro's volume), 'is called on to play a major role in understanding and applying archaeological knowledge'.

Although Moro's analysis has essentially been based only on the synthetic works of British and French scholars, his book makes a valuable contribution to theoretical reflection on the historiography of archaeology. In fact, the author's choice to leave aside contributions made in other countries only serves to underline the considerable work still to be done in the field.

FRANCISCO GRACIA ALONSO

Department of Prehistory, Ancient History and Archaeology, University of Barcelona, Spain

(Email: fgracia@ub.edu)