North Sea Archaeologies: a Maritime Biography, 10,000 BC–AD 1500 , by Robert Van de Noort, 2011. Oxford: Oxford University Press; ISBN 978-0-19-956620-4 hardback £60 & US$125; xii+282 pp., 46 figs.
North Sea Archaeologies: a Maritime Biography, 10,000 BC–AD 1500 , by Robert Van de Noort, 2011. Oxford: Oxford University Press; ISBN 978-0-19-956620-4 hardback £60 & US$125; xii+282 pp., 46 figs.
复制标题
北海考古学：海事传记，公元前 10,000 年至公元 1500 年，罗伯特·范德诺特 (Robert Van de Noort)，2011 年。牛津：牛津大学出版社；ISBN 978-0-19-956620-4 精装本 60 英镑和 125 美元 xii+282 页； ，46 图。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
J. Flatman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Flatman
通过不同的眼睛（第257页）。也许卷的土著考古学最激进的提法是塔拉百万的努力，完全改造考古学使用克里印第安哲学。最后，这本书的目的是什么，它的缩写，以前发表的文章？一个老师可以很容易地为一堂课收集这个集合（据我统计，只有四章是来自难以访问的来源）。任何关注这篇文献的人都可能读过其中的大部分，如果不是全部的话。在我看来，读者的主要目的是通过汇集迄今为止各种各样的思想流派来推进一种新的考古学思维方式。这个定义的目的确实是有用的，编辑的选择很好地服务了这个目的。这些被严重删减的稿件（许多论文被缩减到只有几页）可能会成为一种有效的教学工具。如此短的作品，没有一个可以被指责为乏味。这些章节可能不会提供所有答案，但它们肯定会激发许多问题。当然，对于那些需要更多答案的作品，完整的原始作品就在你附近的图书馆或电脑里。尽管如此，尽管有这些优点，我确实发现有些章节只是过于删节，没有太大的服务（eidogg第29章）。此外，这本书是针对大学生的（第30页），但许多文章是用一种充满行话的语言写成的，新手读者需要一把词汇大刀才能驾驭它们。如果编辑们在脚注中加上更新的内容，那也会很有帮助（例如，最初出版于2003年的一章指出，肯纳威克人的争议尚未解决）。此外，大多数作品主要是纲领性的声明-论文描述了土著考古学的愿望，而不是展示这种新方法如何积极促进我们对过去世界的科学理解。直接涉及考古数据和解释的几章是受欢迎的补充，说明了这种方法可以为实地的学科做些什么（例如第20章和第21章）。最后，为了公平和对话，编辑们本可以选择一些激烈批评土著考古学的文章，比如罗伯特·麦基和罗杰·埃科-霍克的出版物。尽管有这些缺点，这本书确实表明-凭借其国际覆盖面和作者和主题的多样性-土著考古学不仅仅是一种短暂的时尚。土著考古学目前可能处于学科的边缘，但它正在慢慢走向其中心。这本书证实了地球仪周围的许多考古学家设想了一种不同的考古学。然而，即使编辑们试图将土著考古学作为一种相对统一的方法来研究政治现状中的过去，他们强调这种方法如何包含其多样性，其任务是提请注意考古学对每个当地社区产生不同影响的方式。换句话说，这种方法正在发展成为一种越来越连贯的范式，但不需要特定的结果。作为玛格丽特M. Bruchac在书中的结论中写道：“没有单一的‘土著’方法，因为所有的考古学和所有的印第安人都是在当地定位和形成的。没有单一的未来可以预测”（第367页）。Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh人类学系丹佛自然与科学博物馆2001科罗拉多大道丹佛，CO 80205美国电子邮件：chip. c-c@www.example.com
through different eyes (p. 257). Perhaps the volume’s most radical formulation of Indigenous Archaeologies is Tara Million’s effort to completely remake archaeology using Cree Indian philosophy. Ultimately, what is the purpose of this reader with its abbreviated, previously published essays? A teacher could easily assemble this collection for a class (by my count only four chapters are from hard-to-access sources). Anyone following this literature has likely read most, if not all, of these pieces. It seems to me that the reader’s main purpose is to advance a new way of thinking about archaeology by bringing together what has until now been a varied school of thought. This definitional purpose is indeed useful, and served well by the editors’ selections. The acutely amputated contributions (many papers are reduced to just several pages) might serve as an effective teaching tool. With such short pieces, none can be accused of tediousness. These chapters may not offer every answer, but they certainly inspire many questions. And of course for those pieces that do require more answers, the whole, original pieces are somewhere in a library or computer near you. Still, in spite of these advantages, I did find that some chapters were just too truncated to be of much service (e.g. chapter 29). Furthermore, the book is aimed at college students (p. 30), but many articles are written in a language so thick with jargon that the uninitiated reader will need a lexical machete to navigate them. It would have been helpful, too, if the editors had included footnotes with updates (e.g. a chapter originally published in 2003 observes that the Kennewick Man controversy has yet to be resolved). Also, the majority of pieces are mainly programmatic statements — papers that delineate Indigenous Archaeologies’ aspirations, rather than demonstrate how this new method can positively contribute to our scientific understanding of past worlds. The few chapters that directly engage with archaeological data and interpretation are welcomed additions that illustrate what this method can do for the discipline on the ground (e.g. chapters 20 and 21). Finally, for fairness and dialogue, the editors could have selected a few of the articles that fiercely criticize Indigenous Archaeologies, such as the publications by Robert McGhee and Roger Echo-Hawk. Despite these shortcomings, the volume does show — by dint of its international coverage and diversity of authors and subjects — that Indigenous Archaeologies is more than a passing vogue. Indigenous Archaeologies might currently lie at the discipline’s edge, but it is inching towards its centre. The volume confirms that many archaeologists around the globe envision a different kind of archaeology. Yet, even with the editors’ attempts to frame Indigenous Archaeologies as a relatively unified approach to the study of the past in the political present, they emphasize how this method embraces its variety, its mandate to draw attention to the ways in which archaeology impacts each local community differently. This method is developing into an increasingly coherent paradigm, in other words, but requires no particular outcome. As Margaret M. Bruchac writes in the volume’s conclusion, ‘There is no single “Indigenous” approach, since all archaeology, and all Indigeneity, is locally situated and shaped. There is no single future to predict’ (p. 367). Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh Department of Anthropology Denver Museum of Nature & Science 2001 Colorado Boulevard Denver, CO 80205 USA Email: chip.c-c@dmns.org