An Approach to Archeology and the Initiatives Which Are Required - Essay Example

? Introduction The ability to understand and develop theories about a specific piece of archeology is one which requires specific initiatives by researchers. In the book by Eberhard Sauer “Archaeology and Ancient History: Breaking Down the Boundaries,” there is an approach to archeology and the initiatives which are required. The theme which is based on this book is developed from the concept of breaking down boundaries. This refers to individuals, belief systems, definitions and concepts which have been accepted in archeology. What is learned works as the boundary to being able to study and understand more about a piece of evidence which links to the past. The meaning that is behind this particular phrase is based on the ability to negotiate and change definitions by learning more about specific pieces. The relevance to this at an international level is one which can change the viewpoint of archeology and the links to history which are a part of the pieces discovered. Defining the Breaking of Boundaries The main theory which Sauer approaches is based on the individual beliefs and definitions of researchers. Often, what is taught about archeology, a piece of history or other components is limited to what is known. However, when working in the field, there is a change to the unknown. Links to other types of research, cultures, history and aspects of different pieces of evidence make a difference in what a piece discovered may mean and how this relates to history. The example which is used first is based on the boat which is found. The process of understanding the time frame of the boat, materials used and other relevant facts required communication between various researchers and the need to remain open to possibilities of how this piece of work related to others. The concept which is associated with this is breaking down disciplinary boundaries in which one can begin to understand the relationship of artifacts to other concepts which one may not understand. “Breaking down disciplinary boundaries, therefore, is far from straightforward to achieve, and often leads to naive acceptance, outright hostility, or just plain incomprehension in one’s audience” (Sauer, 2004: 57). This particular statement shows how, while disciplines create a foundation for study, the field work and investigation, as well as communication with others, is more important. The concept of breaking down individual beliefs and disciplinary boundaries is further defined by the ability for one to take note of isolated entities and to tie these together to understand a work. The holistic approach to archeology is the main concept, specifically which is defined by cultural understanding, changes of understanding, new information and an international basis that is continuing to offer new segments of information. While these may be available in fragments, an archeologist can tie together the different disciplines and create a well – rounded understanding of what is occurring. The aims of research have to be one based on investigation and the ability to uncover new possibilities, as opposed to remaining in a discipline and expecting specific results that would hinder one from finding out various concepts about the archeology which has been discovered (Sauer, 2004: 42). The ideology which Sauer presents begins with the ability to understand the other disciplines, such as tying history, culture, society, politics and other elements into an artifact. However, Sauer continues to challenge individuals with the idea of breaking boundaries by showing that each individual should also question their own field. While there are known facts which are associated with the discipline, there are also missing segments that are based on the understanding one has about their personal discipline. Often, the knowledge which one has creates the hugest boundaries in being able to discover something new. “Breaking down, the boundaries between disciplines requires not just a willingness to borrow and learn from another discipline, but the humility to question one’s own, on both sides” (Sauer, 56). This quote shows how, even though there is the need to have foundational information, this all becomes irrelevant when looking into the possibilities of what history has created and been made of. The discipline only works as a basis point when one is trying to piece together the different parts of archeology. The challenge which Sauer conveys through the book is based on the ability to look beyond. When an archeologist goes into a specific field of study, there is in – depth information which is given and perceived. It is expected that this information will relate directly to the pieces of archeology that are found and will work to identify specific artifacts. However, this same information may limit one from exploring and discovering new ideologies that are a part of the artifact. Sauer describes the concept of collaboration and breaking boundaries as a melting pot. This allows one to begin to look at the several angles of one artifact, specifically to define how it can relate to the overall objectives in a given society while relating this to the different factors which played a key roll in the making of the object. Sauer is able to challenge individuals in a variety of disciplines to use artifacts to further show how society functioned at a given time frame. Ways to Break Boundaries The work of breaking boundaries between disciplines and within one’s discipline is known to work by approaching data first. When looking at data, each discipline offers a specific perspective or level of insight, specifically which is based on the foundational knowledge of what one has studied. However, this also requires creating a level of communication between the different disciplines to show a different viewpoint. An example of this is seen in the Roman Imperial Italy and Germany in Australia. Specific artifacts are shown with the text and the material culture which has been found in Australia from the medieval time frame, all which links to the politics of Roman culture that was in this region. However, while there is a direct link to the Roman culture the social history often segmented this from the text and the alternative evidence which was found in the region, instead focusing on the Roman approach to the region. When looking at ancient history, historical context, culture of the region and other institutions, it was seen that there were several missing factors that related to the Roman Empire being in this region and what this meant for Australia. Domestic space, gender identity and household archeology, for instance, differed from the political and social materials which were found. The difference was based on aesthetics, expectations for survival and living and the positions which were held in society. This had left a gap in the studies between the private and public spaces and didn’t provide the necessary room for growth of understanding the counterparts to this culture (Allison, 2008 38). The changes which occurred when understanding the Roman Empire can further exhibit the same breaking of boundaries as defined before and after the Great War. When looking at the emergence of events in Europe during this time, there are specific associations with the event and how it links to Germany, politics and leadership. However, what is often isolated before and after the Great War is linked to social and cultural affiliations which were changing during this time. There are also fragmented pieces which can be considered with the rise of new classes, developments of technology and concepts and changes such as in the fine arts. Each of the emerging philosophies and actions which were taken led to the Great War and began to alter things after the Great War. However, if this is taken only by exploring the politics or historical relevance, then missing cultural and foundational evidence is lost and doesn’t show how different events from a variety of disciplines effected the other (Dyson, 86). This is an example of how the boundaries often create a limited understanding of the changes and artifacts during a specific time frame while limiting the applications that are associated with the surrounding historical events. Relevance to International Archeology When looking at the examples of archeology and the breaking down of boundaries which have occurred, it can be seen that there are direct relationships to the ideas and the international approaches to archeology. The concept of working into the international field of archeology is one which is often not referred to with the concept of national events and rural occurrences being the main approach. However, if the field of archeology changed the discipline to an international ideal, then it could be found that events were all interlinked and connected culturally, socially and politically. The events occurring at one side of the world could be based on actions and reactions on the other as well as the historical relevance which this has. The main approach with this is to look at the multiple dimensions and how they could relate internationally as well as what the inter events are in a given region of the world and how this is aligned to another region of the world (Isayev, 2006: 599). An example of this can be seen through the concept of ethnography and how this associates with archeology. When looking back into the ancient history of any culture, it can be seen that there is migration, transfer of origin and movements which have occurred among various ethnicities. This creates minority groups in other regions; however, it also proves that there is an open set of features which are linked to the ideology of going across ethnicities. When looking at ethnographic observation, there is a sociological, historical and political influence which occurs. These each relate to each other not only with the melting pot which occurs in one region. This also shows that there is an open component of the ethnographies that relates to politics, identity and the emergence of culture (Edgeworth, 2:2006). The concept of the melting pot and international influences can then lead into new concepts of transmissions. This means that the information which spans through different fields can begin to alter the way in which many think about archeology as well as what different cultural artifacts and representations mean. The concept of transmissions through different disciplines then reflects the ability for the ethnographies, political influences, cultural status and other archeological concepts that influenced a region to integrate into the philosophies and ideas. As this continues, there will be the ability to link between different cultures and to find the similarities, instead of the divisions, that are associated with a given culture. The overall ideal will be to create a systematic method that is able to move between cultures and philosophies while exploring the possibilities of what an artifact means not only for a given time and spot, but also how this relates to other dimensions of history from various points of view (Knappett, 453:2009). The concept of internationalism and the relationship to archeology can then create the ideal of bridging between cultures, politics and through history. As the bridges are made between the artifacts and the associations with the melting pot, there will be the ability to open new possibilities to what specific artifacts mean and how this relates to the overall ideologies of archeology. An example of this can be seen in pre-historic Britain. When looking at various artifacts, it can be seen that there are cultural influences which are not from the ethnic or cultural associations of Britain. This particular concept is currently referred to as gray literature and gray artifacts. These often relate to influences that came from the opening of the country, such as through colonialism, movements into exchanging economic means and the links to other countries. As ideals continued to form, other means of exchange emerged. The links which can be shown to other cultures through different artifacts show that there is an international relationship to prehistoric Britain and the movement which took place through migration, political means and exchange of culture. Exploring the international relationship changes the way in which history is depicted and shows how one region of the world influences another (Bradley, 1:2006). Debates against Breaking Boundaries Even though there are more possibilities in defining archeology by breaking down boundaries, there are also theories which show that this particular concept may not provide for the best adaptability to archeology. The first is through the focus of many who specialize in regions, neighborhoods and the depth of a culture. If the depth is required to move through multiple disciplines and ideologies, then it stops the capacity for the in – depth information to be found. Those who are known for specializing in a specific topic or culture will have to move into an overview look, specifically because of the collaboration which has to be done. Some of the in – depth information that would be needed would then be lost if the boundaries were broken down not only internationally but also in terms of taking items and moving them across disciplines. There are many which believe that the concept of breaking down the boundaries will cause a loss in specializing in specific types of archeology and the relationship which this holds to historical and culturally relevant ideals (Leontis, 417: 2009). Another concept which is associated with the breaking of boundaries is based on the ideology that archeology shouldn’t cross into so many disciplines that it begins to lose its meaning. Many question the concept of relevance when determining if the boundaries should be crossed. For instance, when looking at an artifact, it is only an artifact. It is made of certain materials and has a specific structure, all which can be linked to a culture and time frame. There are ways in which the artifact can be more thoroughly defined, specifically through the understanding of culture and other applications to history. However, if it goes beyond this, then the concept of archeology loses its meaning. The relevance to politics, history, ethics and other disciplines cause the artifact to become an interpretation of a time period, instead of a direct identification of the artifact. From this viewpoint, the artifact crosses boundaries which then identify opinions from a melting pot of disciplines and which leave outside of the concept of archeology and into alternative fields of meaning (Matthews: 79: 2009). Another question which continues to be raised is based on what is believed about a specific artifact and which may not hold a specific truth. Even if individuals are collaborating on a specific topic, there are also implied definitions within the field. For instance, a linguist may relate a specific artifact to a given language and time frame which then reflects the culture. Even if the linguist works on breaking boundaries and finding other identifiable means of how the language may have been different, this is limited only from the knowledge of the artifact as well as from the knowledge of the collaborators. From this perspective, the collaboration works against trying to find the complete answers to a specific device and the relationship which it has to other meanings throughout history. There is then a question of relevance to the given relationship and how the interpretations of history may have altered, specifically because the relational coordination can change the goals and knowledge through the artifact. Interpretations then take precedence over the artifact and the general information which should be provided about a given object (Gittell, 5: 2006). Conclusion The different concepts that are related to the breaking of boundaries by Sauer allow for new potential to be provided in the concept of archeology. By crossing disciplines, collaborating with others and re-examining the field which one is a part of, there is the ability to identify objects in a different manner. More important, there is the ability to link together various elements of history, culture and society, instead of having a fragmented viewpoint about the object and what it means in society. The concept of breaking boundaries can then be furthered into reflections on the international history of a given society and how different components have affected one region to another. The question which is raised is how effective this is and whether it will create misjudgments or interpretations within society. The importance of Sauer’s work is not only based on the interpretation of boundaries and breaking the academic ideologies that are a part of archeology. More important is the challenge which is given to those who work in this field and which have built a foundation on being a specialist. The specialization has limited the capability of finding out the details of artifacts and in seeing how different elements relate to the next within a given society. Without a melting pot of ideas, there isn’t the ability to challenge history and to find the true elements that are a part of the field. This relates to problems and questions which may arise unless collaboration, communication and the examination of several different angles for one object can be clearly presented when working in the field of archeology. References Allison, P.M. 2008. Presenting and negotiating the evidence: continuing debates of relationships between text and archaeology in Roman social history, in W.R. Caraher, L.J.Hall, R.S. Moore (eds), Archaeology and History in Roman, medieval and post - medieval Greece: studies on method and meaning in honor of Timothy E. Gregory, 37 - 51.Burlington, VT: Ashgate Bradley, Richard. 2006. “Bridging the Two Cultures – Commercial Archeology and the Study of Prehistoric Britain.” The Antiquaries Journal (86). Dyson, S.L. 2006. In pursuit of ancient past: a history of classical archaeology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. New Haven: Yale University. Edgeworth, Matt. (2006). Ethnographies of Archeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations. UK: Rowman and Littleman Publishers. Gittell, JH. 2006. “Relational Coordination: Coordinating Work through Relationships of Shared Goals, Shared Knowledge and Mutual Respect.” Relational Perspectives in Organizational Studies 5 (14). Isayev, Elena. 2006. “Archeology = Object as History = Text: Nudging the Special Relationship into the Post – Ironic World Archeology.” World Archeology 38 (4). Knappett, Carl. 2009. “Cultural Transmission and Material Culture.” Cambridge Archeological Journal (19). Leontis, Artemis. 2009. “Archaeology in the Neighborhood: Views of Ancient Agora and Other Ruins from Outside the Gate.” Journal of Modern Greek Studies 27 (2). Matthews, Christopher. 2009. “Is Archeology Political? Transformative Praxis within and Against Boundaries or Archeology.” The Public Historian 31 (2). Sauer, E. W. (ed.)2004. Archaeology and ancient history: breaking down the boundaries, 76 - 84. London: Routledge Read More