Dig Houses, Dwelling, and Knowledge Production in Archaeology

Morgan, Colleen; Eddisford, Daniel

doi:10.1558/jca.v2i1.22331

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Na disciplinarnim počecima, kada su arheološka iskopavanja sprovođena kao deo kolonijalnih poduhvata "daleko od kuće", namenski su podizani objekti za smeštaj arheoloških ekipa, takozvane arheološke baze. Kuće, kao mesta u kojima se nakon rada na terenu misli, okuplja i obrađuje materijal, ukratko -proizvodi znanje, predstavljale su trajnu investiciju tadašnjih ekspedicija, između ostalog i u cilju uspostavljanja prisustva i "osvajanja" novih teritorija i istraživanja prošlosti (Bennett et al 2014;Morgan and Eddisford 2015). Izgrađeni objekti su bili deo kolonijalnih praksi, koji su funkcionisali dvojako, i kao smeštajni kapacitet, i kao demarkaciona mesta istraživača i istraživanih, onih koji regulišu i regulisanih.…”

Section: Izvršni Autoritet U Arheologijiunclassified

Authority and the production of archaeological knowledge

Ćosić¹

2016

EAP / IEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The discipline of archaeology is founded upon the interaction of various practices, in the network of individuals and institutions, jointly shaping and formulating the explanations of the past. The registered sites and material remains represent the places where undefined layers and physical structures are converted from heaps of dirt and discarded material into the knowledge of the past. From the perspective of production of knowledge and construction of facts about the times past, the archaeological excavations are not only a process of research. The production of archaeological knowledge, in the field and beyond, always takes place under specific circumstances, including not only the relations among professionals and institutions, but also the relations between material remains and the individuals “discovering” them and translating them into interpretations. Metaphorically speaking, in the complex relationship between archaeologists and material culture, an individual in the process of creating the knowledge of an object creates his/her own professional identity, while an object creates an archaeologist in the process of identification. The final outcome presents a chosen and formulated explanation about the past, stemming from a specific logic of disciplinary practice. However, the question arises: what or who decides which interpretations are more valid than the others, and who is in the position to declare an authentic interpretation of the excavated material. Thus the discussion enters the field of problematizing the concept of authority and its role in the production of archaeological knowledge. The analyses show that authority should not be understood as a definite source, periodically appearing and disappearing, but rather as an achievement of social and cultural interactions and changes. The theoretical grounds for the research of authority is formulated based upon Foucault’s interpretation of relation between power and knowledge. The axis for identification of authority in disciplinary practices is determined by the chosen categories of executive, epistemic, and intellectual authority, coupled with archaeological ethnography. The suggested development of the theoretical framework is aimed to secure the tools for considering the shapes and sources of authority in archaeology and its role in the production of archaeological knowledge of the past.

show abstract

Section: Izvršni Autoritet U Arheologijiunclassified

Authority and the production of archaeological knowledge

Ćosić¹

2016

EAP / IEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But as discussions in the history of science make clear (Carruthers and Van Damme, 2017), archaeological practices are wide ranging. And as Morgan and Eddisford (2015) note, spaces such as the dig house have long constituted meaningful locales of such practice. The dig house is an archaeological institution, too.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Credibility, civility, and the archaeological dig house in mid-1950’s Egypt

Carruthers

2019

Journal of Social Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that forms of civility governing who possessed the credibility to carry out archaeological fieldwork altered in Egypt during the post-World War II era of decolonization. Incorporating Arabic sources, the article focuses on the preparation of a dig house used during an excavation run by the Egyptian Department of Antiquities and the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania at the site of Mit Rahina, Egypt, in the mid-1950s. The study demonstrates how the colonial genealogies of such structures converged with political changes heralded by the rise of Nasser. Preparing the dig house, Euro-American archaeologists involved with the excavation had to abide by social norms practiced by the Egyptians who had recently taken charge of the Department of Antiquities. Given that these norms often perpetuated older hierarchies of race, gender, and class, however, the article questions what the end of colonialism actually meant for archaeology.

show abstract

“…Anecdotally, there have been an abundance of punks employed in contract archaeology for the last forty years. Field archaeology traditionally relies on highly-skilled workers who accept low wages, unreliable hours and marginal living conditions, who can also live and work communally (Morgan and Eddisford 2015). While not all field archaeologists are punks, there is a relatively high acceptance of non-conformist dress and behavior in the commercial archaeological community.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Punk, DIY, and Anarchy in Archaeological Thought and Practice

Morgan¹

2017

AP Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent developments in archaeological thought and practice involve a seemingly disparate selection of ideas that can be collected and organized as contributing to an anti-authoritarian, “punk” archaeology. This includes the contemporary archaeology of punk rock, the DIY and punk ethos of archaeological labor practices and community involvement, and a growing interest in anarchist theory as a productive way to understand communities in the past. In this article, I provide a greater context to contemporary punk, DIY, and anarchist thought in academia, unpack these elements in regard to punk archaeology, and propose a practice of punk archaeology as a provocative and productive counter to fast capitalism and structural violence.

show abstract

Dig Houses, Dwelling, and Knowledge Production in Archaeology

Cited by 8 publications

References 17 publications

Authority and the production of archaeological knowledge

Authority and the production of archaeological knowledge

Credibility, civility, and the archaeological dig house in mid-1950’s Egypt

Punk, DIY, and Anarchy in Archaeological Thought and Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About