Framing Archaeology in the Near East; The Application of Social Theory to Fieldwork; Ianir Milevski; Thomas Levy

Edited by

Ianir Milevski [+–]

Israel Antiquities Authority

Ianir Milevski is a Senior Research Archaeologist at the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA)
and Corresponding Researcher in the National Research Council of Argentina (CONICET). He has also been visiting lecturer at several universities in Argentina as part of the “Raíces” program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of that country. Until recently he was Head of the Prehistoric Branch of the IAA. His research focused on the socio-economic processes of the late prehistory of the southern Levant utilizing a historical materialistic viewpoint. In the last few years his main research concentrates on cultural heritage issues, archaeological theory and the art history of the Levantine prehistory and protohistory. He has produced more than 150 articles and chapters in books, and 15 authored and edited volumes.

Thomas E Levy [+–]

University of California, San Diego

Thomas E. Levy is Distinguished Professor of the Graduate Division, Co-Director of the Center for Cyber-Archaeology and Sustainability at the Qualcomm Institute and inaugural holder of the Norma Kershaw Chair in the Archaeology of Ancient Israel and Neighboring Lands at the University of California, San Diego. With over thirty years of archaeological field experience in Israel and Jordan, Levy’s current research focuses on the Iron Age historical archaeology of Edom in southern Jordan. He is Associate Director of the Center of Interdisciplinary Science for Art, Architecture and Archaeology (CISA3) at UCSD’s California Insitute of Telecommunications and Information Technology (Calit2). Levy is editor of Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel (Equinox Publishing, 2006) and co-editor, with Thomas Higham, of The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science (Equinox Publishing, 2005). His most recent book, with his wife Alina and the Sthapathy brothers of Swamimalai is Masters of Fire: Hereditary Bronze Casters of South India (German Mining Museum, 2008). Levy is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

PAPERBACK PUBLISHED OCTOBER 2017

There are a number of factors that account for why social theory is often under-exploited by archaeologists in this part of the world. In many countries, where large numbers of the foreign archaeologists are involved, a division between those doing fieldwork and those undertaking archaeological interpretation can easily arise. Or, the lack of interest in social theory may stem from a legacy of positivism that overrides other approaches. There is also the fact that archaeology and anthropology often belong to separate academic departments and are considered two separate disciplines disconnected from each other. In some cases the centrality of historical paradigms has precluded the use of social theory. There are also divisions between universities and other research institutions, such as departments of antiquities, which is not conductive to interdisciplinary cooperation. This factor is especially debilitating in contexts of rapid destruction of sites and the exponential growth of salvage excavations and emergency surveys.

The papers integrate a wide range of perspectives including ‘New’ or ‘Processual’ archaeology, Marxist, ‘Post-Processual’, evolutionist, cognitive, symbolic, and Cyber- archaeologies and touch on many topics including 3D representation, GIS, mapping and social theory, semiotics and linguistics, gender and bioarchaeology, social and technical identities, and modern historical modellingy and social practices in Middle Eastern archaeology.

Series: New Directions in Anthropological Archaeology

Preliminaries

List of Figures [+–] vii

Ianir Milevski,Thomas E Levy FREE

Israel Antiquities Authority

University of California, San Diego

This volume presents a series of studies by scholars working in Middle Eastern archaeology who actively apply social theory to interpret their fieldwork. It aims to highlight the value of using social theory in the interpretation of field work in a region where, traditionally, such approaches have not played a major role. There are a number of factors that account for why social theory is often under-exploited by archaeologists in this part of the world. In many countries, where large numbers of the foreign archaeologists are involved, a division between those doing fieldwork and those undertaking archaeological interpretation can easily arise. Or, the lack of interest in social theory may stem from a legacy of positivism that overrides other approaches. There is also the fact that archaeology and anthropology often belong to separate academic departments and are considered two separate disciplines disconnected from each other. In some cases the centrality of historical paradigms has precluded the use of social theory. There are also divisions between universities and other research institutions, such as departments of antiquities, which is not conductive to interdisciplinary cooperation. This factor is especially debilitating in contexts of rapid destruction of sites and the exponential growth of salvage excavations and emergency surveys. The papers integrate a wide range of perspectives including ‘New’ or ‘Processual’ archaeology, Marxist, ‘Post-Processual’, evolutionist, cognitive, symbolic, and Cyber- archaeologies and touch on many topics including 3D representation, GIS, mapping and social theory, semiotics and linguistics, gender and bioarchaeology, social and technical identities, and modern historical modellingy and social practices in Middle Eastern archaeology.

List of Tables [+–] viii

Ianir Milevski,Thomas E Levy FREE

Israel Antiquities Authority

University of California, San Diego

Preface [+–] ix

Ianir Milevski,Thomas E Levy FREE

Israel Antiquities Authority

University of California, San Diego

Introduction: Social Theory and Archaeology [+–] 1-6

Ianir Milevski,Thomas E Levy FREE

Israel Antiquities Authority

University of California, San Diego

The introduction to the volume explain the goals in the organization of the workshop the topic of the influence of social theory in the archaeology of the Ancient Near East, conducted in the framework of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (8ICAANE). The workshop was intended to bring together international scholars working in the Middle East who actively apply social theory in their fieldwork. The volume presents debated themes amongst archaeologists working in the Middle East in which social theory has been applied. The introduction presents the different subjects in which the volume was divided and the fact that the volume presents different approaches in social theory applied to archaeology. The objective of the volume is not to provide a statement establishing the “program” for social theory and archaeology but to show the multiplicity of ways to utilize these theories in order to understand the archaeological record and the discipline of archaeology in the Middle East.

Chapter 1

Spacetime Mapping the Ancient Near East: Scalability and Seamlessness in Theory and Practice of Spatial Archaeology [+–] 7-20

Michael J Harrower £17.50

John Hopkins University

Archaeologists have long recognized the importance of space, time and spatiotemporal scale, but with a plethora of new geospatial tools transforming examination of the ancient past the need for greater integration of new technologies and social/spatial theory has become increasingly crucial. This chapter explores tensions among interpretive and empirically-centered perspectives and emphasizes opportunities for more deeply multiscalar, seamless approaches to ancient physical and human geographies. Approaches that exploit new spatial technologies including online, 3D and qualitative GIS, Radar, LiDAR, and UAVs to address short-term local to long-term global scales of change while reflexively integrating qualitative research, spatial malleability, and landscape, social theory herald an exceptionally promising future for spatial archaeology.

Chapter 2

Gender and the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: Femininities and Masculinities [+–] 21-30

Joanna Mardas £17.50

Institute of Prehistory, Adam Mickiewicz University

In archaeology understanding of gender and sex has changed from regarding them as the opposition of culture versus nature to perceiving both of them as cultural constructs. In this paper I would like to focus on gender in Mesopotamia, where obviously different types of masculinities and femininities were in use. In fact, in Mesopotamia, men and women were only two of more possible genders. Kurgarru, assinu, kulu’u and SAL-zikrum might be regarded as other genders. Enquiry into construction of these genders is important to understand the relationships between people. Yet, we should keep in mind that investigation of genders is not simple, there are traps waiting for archaeologists.

Chapter 3

Perspectives on Sex and Gender Questions through Burial Practices in Southern Central Asia during the Bronze Age [+–] 31-50

Elise Luneau £17.50

Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Eurasien Abteilung

Utilizing the methods of gender studies, we present here a comparative analysis of female and male burials from five major sites of Bronze Age in Central Asia (Sapallitepe, Dzharkutan, Gonur Depe, Altyn Depe and Ulug Depe); this analysis reveals a distinct differentiation between funeral practices connected to each sex as seen in the distribution of funerary goods. Despite the necessary further refinement in the study of the anthropological data, several items laid in the graves can be perceived as gender markers linked to the social structure of gender identity within the Oxus civilization. This paper aims to present the main perspectives on gender studies in protohistoric Southern Central Asia about the roles and the social status of the genders, and especially the place of women in this society.

Chapter 4

Semiotics in Action: Neolithic Imagery on the Move [+–] 51-62

Patrycja Filipowicz £17.50

Institute of Prehistory, Adam Mickiewicz University

Between 6500 – 5500 B.C. significant changes occurred in different parts of Central Anatolia. Those multidimensional transformations included changes of the Neolithic imagery exemplified by the gradual disappearance of in – house wall paintings and installations in favor of increase of decorated pottery, making imagery more mobile. In Neolithic sites like Çatalhöyük a consistent repertoire of images was used and reproduced through time. Some of them have been ‘inherited’ by younger communities. This paper is an attempt of explaining the reproduction of old Neolithic images across the Chalcolithic Central Anatolia. Theoretical approach employed here draws on the semiotics of Charles. S. Peirce which offers a set of powerful concepts well suitable for investigating the imagery. I will use selected Peircean terms, in particular replica and replication to explain the spread of the Neolithic imagery in the later periods.

Chapter 5

The Role of Communication in Late 3rd Millennium BC Mesopotamian Society Supported by Cross-disciplinary Interpretative Tools [+–] 63-78

Alessandro Di Ludovico £17.50

“La Sapienza” Università di Roma

Currently available data and indirect clues on cultures of late third millennium B.C. southern Mesopotamia have been largely used for in-depth studies on social, political and economic aspects of life in that age. In fact, the study of Mesopotamian history and specific cultural features of the ancient Babylonian region of late third millennium have been out of necessity grounded more on the content of the many known written documents than on the products of material culture or other relics. Written sources revealed themselves useful to scholars to outline a number of central social and political features of this period, but many poorly-explored aspects of this cuneiform heritage are probably rich of interesting data for interpreting Mesopotamian history.

Chapter 6

Social Theories, Technical Identities, Cultural Boundaries: A Perspective on the “Colonial Situation” in Late Chalcolithic 3-5 Northern Mesopotamia [+–] 79-94

Johnny Samuele Baldi £17.50

Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie – Institut Français du Proche Orient

A wide archaeological literature deals with Uruk colonies in fourth millennium B.C. northern Mesopotamia, proposing many historical and anthropological models to explain this phenomenon. The case study here presented focuses on the ceramics (especially jars) of Tell Feres al-Sharqi (a chalcolithic village in north-eastern Syria). The analysis of technical features (manufacturing methods, fabrics, morphology) allows to identify, alongside a local chaff tempered tradition, a southern one with mineral fabrics. Both the “colonial situation” between Uruk and local people and the technical borrowings between the two traditions represent a framework recognized in many northern Mesopotamian sites between Late Chalcolithic 3 and 5. But this is not the occasion to repeat well-known data on the culture contact in Upper Mesopotamia. On the contrary, the specific conditions documented at Tell Feres offer the basis for discussing the approach to techniques (the language between humans and things) as a bridge for applying social theories to the archaeological record. The concept of “technical identities” may allow the identification of different social entities (and some elements of their relationships) on a material basis and so to avoid aprioristic evolutional and positivistic attitudes.

Chapter 7

New Social Perspectives on Intermediate Bronze Age Burial Practices at Jericho [+–] 95-112

Aaron Greener £17.50

Bar-Ilan University

Dame Kathleen Kenyon excavated a large Intermediate Bronze Age cemetery at Jericho in the 1950s. She identified several types of shaft tombs, distinct by their location, shape, body treatment and repertoire of grave goods placed inside them. In this paper I re-examine the burial practices and the grave offering distribution, considering the cultural context and cognitive aspects that influenced the creation of the archaeological record. I argue that the burial record teaches of a social complexity and a separation based on gender and age, and attempt to define which social group was buried in each of the tomb types. This study strengthens the argument for the great importance given to burial and its rituals during the Intermediate Bronze Age.

Chapter 8

The Kingdom of Edom? A Critical Reappraisal of the Edomite State Model [+–] 113-122

Juan Manuel Tebes £17.50

Pontificia Universidad Catolica Argentina, Universidad de Buenos Aires – Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas

Syro-Palestinian archaeology has been traditionally slow to incorporate the terminology, discussions and methods developed in mainstream world archaeology. Fortunately, the recent decades have seen a burst of studies trying to understand old and new archaeological data through the lenses of social theory. The history of scholarship on the emergence of complex societies in Iron Age southern Transjordan (the biblical kingdom of Edom) is a perfect example of this phenomenon. This polity has been studied since the beginning of archaeological research in the area under the lenses of the model of the modern nation-state. Edom was seen as a “kingdom” or “monarchy” with all those “national” attributes that we commonly ascribe to modern states. Since the 1990s scholarly views on Edom have been thoroughly influenced by a new current of research that stresses tribalism as the most important factor working in the Transjordanian societies in the Iron Age. Thus, Edom has been named a “tribal kingdom”, a “segmentary society” and a “nation” of trans-local groups sharing an artificial kin relationship. However, models that acknowledge the important role of kin-based organizations in one way or the other implicitly view the State as the model upon which the local groups, being they tribes, clans or families, should be accommodated. Late Iron Age Edom, even if presents evidences of a hierarchical society in Buseirah, cannot be subsumed under the category of State. Buseirah can be better interpreted as a chiefdom, whose sovereignty was limited to its hinterland.

Chapter 9

Biblical Archaeology, Processualism, Post-Processualism and Beyond [+–] 123-140

Ianir Milevski,Bernardo Gandulla £17.50

Israel Antiquities Authority

Universidad de Buenos Aires

Archaeology rise in the southern Levant strongly related to Biblical studies and religious-political interests that accompanied the European presence in the Orient. During the first half of the 20th century, archaeology was intensely developed as a scientific discipline though Biblical bias still existed among researchers. A short evaluation of Biblical Archaeology is offered here integrating also the historical context in which this discipline rose and flourished. Archaeology in Israel was utilized as a means of unifying or creating “national” myths which connect the past with the present. Over the years, new archaeological streams influenced Israeli and other researchers working in the southern Levant, mostly related with the Processualist currents emerging in America. In the 1960s these currents put the accent more on economic, social and technological aspects of archaeology than on the traditional political aspects related to Biblical studies. The social and political developments in Israel and the Middle East in the 1990s were the framework of Post-processualist viewpoints, related mostly with European tendencies attested in the archaeology of these countries. The main accent here was put on the importance of human ideas and initiatives in the social developments and to a lesser degree on technology or the ecological characteristics of ancient societies. In the archaeology of Israel questions of identities, gender and control were registered in the archaeological research. Other archaeological practices such as “communal archaeology” also appear on the archaeological horizon. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict greatly influenced that horizon as well. The goal of this paper is to analyze these developments in the framework of the history of the region.

End Matter

Index [+–] 141-146

Ianir Milevski,Thomas E Levy FREE

Israel Antiquities Authority

University of California, San Diego

Reviews

The papers in this volume are of interest, both in terms of the presentation of new theory and new data.
Paléorient

The volume represents an interesting attempt at discussing different social theoretical approaches to diverse types of archaeological data (analysis of ancient landscapes, funerary contexts, pottery manufacture, written sources, and visual imagery) and aims to broaden the interpretation of archaeological fieldwork data.
American Journal of Archaeology

A timely and welcome volume... joins a growing number of works that have recently engaged with the fruitful connections between general social theory and the deep history of archaeological enquiry.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal

.

Books and Journals in Humanities, Social Science and Performing Arts

Ianir Milevski [+–]

Israel Antiquities Authority

Thomas E Levy [+–]

University of California, San Diego

Table of Contents

Reviews

Related Journal

Related Interest

Search Equinox

Subjects