Archaeological Dialogues.
Kotsakis, Kostas
Is there a European archaeology? This frequently asked question
deserves more than an evasive answer. Can European archaeology be
defined as something more structured than the collective result of
'European' archaeologists doing archaeology in
'European' countries? The issue is familiar and some general
answers, such as emphasis on intellectual ties with history, have been
suggested (e.g. Trigger 1989; Hodder 1991), but a detailed response
remains elusive. To some extent this is a problem of communication.
First, knowledge of diverging traditions is seriously impaired by the
often introverted and recycling attitude of academic and institutional
structures. Esoteric publications and language barriers are well known
problems. Neither communication nor exchange is helped by the
politically and intellectually dominant discourse of the traditionally
powerful European countries, which drastically inhibits the exchange of
ideas in both directions. From the less self-admiring perspective of
countries outside the elite group, and in the hope of an open dialogue,
the agonising question is how much longer can the ideal of unity, always
controversial (e.g. Ucko 1995), sustain the impact of re-emerging
regional identities? The problem is acute because these identities are
based on archaeological genealogies, and are often aimed at domination
over other identities. Since classicism, archaeology has always involved
the manipulation of power through the appropriation of time - at least
this has been a distinct European heritage. Today this seems to be
breaking down from the monopoly of international political power to the
compromise of regional autonomy. The socio-political interpretation of
the European past is therefore closely tied to a deeper understanding of
these, at times conflicting, regional archaeological traditions; this is
a major task for the discipline in future years. To this end, the issues
which are stressed and, above all, those which are avoided are vital
clues, while direct communication between traditions assumes the highest
priority.
A second issue is theory, and here theory is taken not so much as a
set of abstract generalizations, but rather as discussion of the basic
characteristics of archaeological reconstruction. While it is true that
no archaeological observation is devoid of some theoretical content, the
level of awareness and debate have developed at varying speeds in
different traditions. How much of this awareness will each regional
tradition be willing to integrate into its own reconstruction of the
past? What can each tradition contribute to wider theoretical
discussion?
The three new journals reviewed here share the common aim of
exploring the European dimension of archaeology, but do so from
differing perspectives and different foundations. The journals come from
various parts of (northern) Europe: Prehistoire Europeenne (PE) comes
from Liege in Belgium and Archaeological Dialogues (AD) from Leiden in
the Netherlands, while the Journal of European Archaeology (JEA)
represents the European Association of Archaeologists and is not
directly tied to any regional archaeological tradition. The editorial
boards differ considerably both in size and in representativeness. By
far the most extensive is the board of PE, which numbers 63 members
covering most European countries, old and new, together with Canada, the
USA and Japan. In sharp contrast, the editorial board of AD involves
only four archaeologists, all attached to Dutch institutions. This is
closely followed by the board of JEA with seven members, and by the
advisory board supporting AD with 14 scholars. Within these boards the
representation of various schools of archaeological thought is again
unequal: both AD and JEA lean heavily towards the Anglo-Saxon countries,
and except for Italy, only include countries of northern Europe, in
obvious contrast to PE.
These differences are questionable, given the intention of exploring
the regional archaeological traditions of Europe, but are not
accidental. In the very explicit editorial statement of AD,
significantly entitled 'Dutch perspectives in contemporary
archaeology', exploration of the relationship between the Dutch
archaeological tradition and that of Anglo-American archaeology is
described as one of the journal's main objectives, if only to be
rejected later as a false dichotomy. As the title of the journal states,
the focus is on dialogue, and dialogue involves two partners. In this
context, in which Dutch archaeology serves as a starting-point, other
themes of interest include social and historical perspectives,
interpretation of material culture, cultural landscapes,
interdisciplinary approaches, society and cultural politics, the history
of archaeological thought, and innovative methods and techniques.
Lastly, the journal is published in English, a firm commitment to
bilateral communication between European traditions.
No editorial statement introduces PE. A brief note on the cover
informs readers that the journal is devoted to the rapid dissemination
of information on the prehistoric cultures of the continent. The
theoretical aspects of this information are clearly, and very briefly,
stated as (a) supra-regional comparison, (b) historical interpretation
and (c) anthropological interpretation. At first glance, the theoretical
range appears deliberately (?) limited and oriented towards the
conventional, although the reference to historical and anthropological
interpretation hints at a specifically Francophone archaeological
tradition (Cleuziou et al. (1991), Olivier & Coudart (1995)).
Emphasis is ultimately placed on the geographical aspect of the European
perspective, and the broad composition of the editorial board reflects
this. The editorial statement of JEA, on the other hand, is
straightforward and brief. Two main points are highlighted: the need for
an archaeology that transcends national frontiers, and an increasing
interest in archaeological explanation. Further points of interest
include non-European perceptions of archaeology, the role of archaeology
in society, the organization of archaeology in a future unified Europe,
and the ethics and practices of the discipline. Of the three journals,
JEA seems to be the most conscious of a developing unified field of
European archaeology.
The inaugural editorials give a clear picture of their differing and
yet mutually complementary objectives. JEA adopts the function of an
open forum for the exchange of ideas, while AD approaches the fervour of
a theoretical manifesto of a particular regional tradition, and calls
for communication with the rest of Europe. PE by contrast opts for the
presentation of primary archaeological evidence from different regions.
Here Europe is conceived as a geographical entity, in which plurality of
information is of prime importance, and little significance is accorded
to archaeological theory. How well these objectives are met may be
measured by a brief examination of the contents of the published
volumes.
PE closely follows the lines of the first volume. The papers are
divided into three categories: review articles (syntheses), usually of
wide chronological or geographical coverage; shorter contributions on
various topics (dossiers); and some brief excavation reports. The
balance heavily favours the Palaeolithic, represented by 39 papers,
against only eight for the Neolithic or Chalcolithic. There is an
obvious Eastern European bias, with 20 papers discussing material from
that region, including nine from the former Soviet Union (Moldavia,
Ukraine and Siberia). Next in frequency come France (8) and Romania (8).
Almost all the papers are accompanied by rich and detailed illustrations
of archaeological material, which should be informative for the
specialist. Although the Palaeolithic period is beyond the expertise of
this reviewer, some brief remarks may still be ventured on the general
approach adopted in these papers, particularly with regard to the issues
posed at the beginning of this review. The question is whether the
culture-historical framework prevalent in several contributions,
especially from Eastern Europe, is useful to research traditions that
long ago abandoned these simplistic pattern-based interpretative approaches. This reflects a serious problem of communication and, in the
bibliographic references, the sparseness of recent works of synthesis is
immediately apparent: e.g., in discussion of the neolithization of
southwestern Germany, no mention is made of existing models; and, on the
origins of cemeteries, there is no sign of any encounter with modern
mortuary archaeology. These examples could easily be multiplied to show
that the road to integration is indeed long and narrow, and should start
with a thorough acquaintance with the literature, across national
frontiers and regional academic traditions. PE could be a valuable step
in this direction, provided it increases the number of papers dealing
with synthesis and interpretation.
Stimulation through the diversity of traditions is pursued by AD, but
this stimulation is conceived as the result of debate within a
relatively integrated theoretical field. This is reflected in the format
adopted: a major leading article forms the core of each volume,
juxtaposed by shorter contributions commenting on the issues raised; a
reply by the author closes the circle. An active dialogue is thus
established, in which readers are prompted to participate. In the
volumes published so far, the major articles are written by Dutch
archaeologists, while the responses come from scholars from various
countries, with Britain having a large share. Although the majority of
the contributors are Dutch, this scheme guarantees cross-fertilization
of ideas. The discussion is thus far more ambitious than a simple survey
of current trends in theoretical archaeology, and the monitoring of
their impact on Dutch archaeology. Obviously this last task falls within
the journal's objective of creating an academic milieu, and is
evident in the explicatory tone of some of the papers, which aims to
situate Dutch archaeology in the international arena of archaeological
ideas. Nevertheless the papers maintain a fine balance, and are still of
wide usefulness, precisely because of their clarity. In addition, a
number of original themes is put forward as a contribution to an
on-going debate, and these are addressed to an outside audience. One
such recurring theme is the so-called historical-anthropological
approach, presented as an intriguing alternative to the limited
influence of post-processual ideas on Dutch archaeology, but one that
apparently has wider relevance. The reconstruction of cultural
landscapes exemplifies the potential of this approach; these are
perceived in terms of long-term human action, accessed through the
combination of folkloric and archaeological evidence. This
'cultural biography' of landscapes re-opens the issue of
continuities and discontinuities in the past, and questions the
relevance of anthropological narrative, especially for regions of Europe with great historical depth. In this way, Dutch archaeology takes part
in current discussion of contextualized landscapes (e.g. Bender 1993;
Tilley 1994). Points in a similar vein are raised by the rest of the
papers. AD is an excellent journal. Coming from a small country, and
representing a small academic community, the archaeology presented in AD
is a good example of a regional school with distinctive traits, and
offers a genuine contribution to the map of European archaeological
thought.
Plurality of ideas and approaches is by definition part of the
Journal of European Archaeology, the instrument of the Association of
European Archaeologists. No paradigmatic uniformity is sought here,
although all contributions are critical of current trends, and have a
noticeably reflexive outlook. At times this attitude appears unduly
bitter, e.g. in blaming post-processual archaeologists for naively
tolerating alternative readings of the past, regardless of the fact that
these readings may include chauvinistic or nationalistic views, and
instead urging archaeologists to bring themselves into alignment with
the impartiality of universal criteria. The truth is that impartiality
in a conflict often indirectly supports the claims of the aggressor;
there is no simple way for archaeology to evade its political
responsibilities. These are central issues worthy of the closest
examination, however, in which JEA intends to take an active part. The
idea of European unity is naturally a recurring theme in the pages of
JEA. Whether this theme is approached in administrative terms or as a
theoretical question (at times not resisting an appeal to a mystifying identity), the differences between traditions are nonetheless present.
For example, contributions from outside Britain are, as a rule, tied to
their particular region, while all those attempting a synthesis in a
wider geographical context originate from Britain. Is this an indication
that the cosmopolitan character of British archaeology acts as a barrier
to the development of similar approaches in adjacent regions: that
archaeologists in other countries feel intimidated from venturing into a
field which has been occupied for so long by British archaeology? The
answer may be in the affirmative, but one hopes that this bias will be
redressed in the future, as regional traditions increasingly meet in a
European political reality that is once again redefining the role of
individual countries. JEA shows that the theoretical distance between
traditions is gradually closing, and this is a valuable contribution of
commendable effort. For anyone wishing to view a panorama of sound
European archaeology with all its theoretical strengths and weaknesses,
JEA is undoubtedly a good choice.
Returning to the question posed at the beginning of this review, is
it possible to define any special characteristics of a European
archaeology? That it is not yet a unified field, is certain. Theoretical
traditions are still distinct, and there is marked divergence in the
social contexts in which archaeology is practised. Notable in these
three journals is the very modest presence of German archaeology,
despite its international background through archaeological projects in
various parts of the world. Notable too is the relative lack of
contributions from eastern European countries. Even in Prehistoire
Europeene, southeastern Europe is almost totally blank. It is tempting
to define simplistically the dividing lines and frontiers of the
discipline: a central and eastern European region dominated by the
cultural-historical archetype, and a northern European region, where
theory and interpretation are in the foreground. No doubt such divisions
also describe wider, and obvious, issues of international politics, of
which archaeology forms an integral (though not always important) part.
But I prefer to see disciplinary unity as an aspect of practice, that is
of relations between people, which in some cases antedate the interlaced political framework of Europe. Research programmes between countries,
exchange schemes of students and researchers, and unified policies on
cultural heritage are structures that gradually form a community of
interests and relations, and should have a considerable impact. From
this point of view, there is no immediate urgency for research
traditions to converge. They only need to stay in touch.
Reference
BENDER, B. (ed.). 1993, Landscapes: politics and perspectives.
Oxford: Berg.
CLEUZIOU, S., A. COUDART, J.-P. DEMOULE & A. SCHNAPP. 1991. The
use of theory in French archaeology, in Hodder (ed.): 91-128.
HODDER, I. (ed.). 1991. Archaeological theory in Europe: the last
three decades. London: Routledge.
OLIVIER, L. & A. COUDART. 1995. French tradition and the central
place of history in the human sciences: preamble to a dialogue between
Robinson Crusoe and his Man Friday, in Ucko (ed.): 363-81.
TILLEY, C. 1994. A phenomenology of landscape. Oxford: Berg.
TRIGGER, B.G. 1989. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
UCKO, P.J. 1995a, Introduction: archaeological interpretation in a
world context, in Ucko (ed.): 1-27.
(Ed.). 1995b. Theory in archaeology: a world perspective. London:
Routledge.
