Relationship Between Colonialism And Archaeology

Anthropology is the study of humans in the past and present. Four subfields encompass anthropology; Archaeology, cultural anthropology, linguistics, and physical anthropology. Archaeology is the study of human cultures in the past through material remains. These material remains include artifacts as well as architecture. Archaeologist can focus in prehistoric, historic, or classical archaeology. Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark, is an example of archaeology in film. It is not the best example since Dr. Jones does not carry the correct equipment with him in the field (notebooks, trowel, shovel) nor does he take any notes when removing an artifact from a site. However, the film does portray how an archaeologist would dig in order to recover artifacts, like when Indy and the team find the

It is no longer unusual to suggeste that the construction of the colonial order is related to the eloboration of modern forms of representation and knowledge

It has flawlessly displayed the coalescence of the principles of archaeology, linguistics, forensic science and ethnography, the use of the holistic approach of anthropology (Parkin & Ulijaszek, 2007) to reveal the violence and inhumanity brought by global inequality, without euphemizing the real events. The message the anthropologist Jason De León has successfully resonated with his readers, serving as a thought-provoking eye opener of the current socio-political

Since these ancient people did not work with writing, this made an obstacle for the archaeologists; who had to create artifacts to help with their studies. They did all they could do, except ignore what can’t be ignored: ancient Americans’ past events.

When we study old cultures we learn how people adapt to their environment and cope with natural disasters. We learn how patterns of immigration affect languages and why civilizations thrive or die out. Studying the remints of culture, help us understand how people lived long ago, and helps us understand our own civilization. However, not all of the world heritage sites are ancient ruins; also included are Australia’s modern Sydney Opera House, the Tower of London, in England, The Statue of Liberty, in New York Harbor, and other recognizable structures. These are all impressive places of outstanding value to people around the world.

The history of archaeology plays an important role in the controversial issues surrounding the science. Archaeology has only recently become a concrete science. Although mankind has always had an interest in the past, the root of archaeology is believed to have started in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. During this time period, artifacts were mainly sought after for collecting. The upper class of the Renaissance period collected artifacts from places such as Rome and Greece to display in their homes as art. As time went on, the lure of historical art and artifacts increased. “Classical archaeology” is the direct result of this curiosity. The “classical archaeologists” were mainly wealthy men that collected artifacts for their homes and studied where they

Janet Spector’s book What The Awl Means is a break-way writing that reflects on many relevant issues within archeology during twentieth century. Spector expresses her internal conflict on the lack of divergent views and limited knowledge acquired when excavating Indian sites. She demonstrates this causes a shortage towards influential archeology because there is “no framework for understanding Native American perspective and perception only the intense wish to know” (Spector 3). However, Spector sets specific motives to dismantle the ignorance people hold towards Native American specifically in archeology. She introduces her primary intensions to replace orthodox archeological methods, by integrating Native American voices into her project. While Spector raises a legitimate critique by acknowledging Eurocentric biases in archeology, she also falls prey to them herself, as demonstrated by her failure to

Participation by archaeologists in the indigenous construction of heritage remains a difficult and controversial issue (McGuire 1992:37, Nicholas and Andrews 1997a:12, 1997b:277; Trigger 2006:177-189). Following the critical theory of Habermas (1971:14-22, 1973:32-40) and its use in archaeology (Leone et al. 1987:283-292; Lyons 2005:1; Wylie 1985:138), archaeological practice is clearly a socio-political action in and for the present (Tilley 1989:105). Collaborative research with stakeholders may influence interpretation and results for social and political gain (McGhee 2008:580-581). This influence may

This anthropologist and archeologist have discovered the existence of this fascinating connection between culture and art among hunter-gather societies dating back to the 19th century. For anthropologist, culture is the foundation that many societies are built on; it is recognized as a community shared values, religions, traditions, sense of communication and behaviours (Creese, 2011 pg. 5). The knowledge and understanding a society culture is beneficial for determining the motivation or actions of a particular group and can be used to discover the communities’ way of living. Cultural aspects of life are critically important for hunter-gathers particularly the Native Americans and are the inspiration for many forms of art. Art is closely related to culture, as it is universal characteristic and behavior of humankind. For the Native American the use of art moved past the aesthetics and became a reflection of their culture brought into reality through painting, drawing and carvings. These exceptional forms of art became a heavily respected element of aboriginal’s ceremonies, traditions, religion, and social behaviors (Creese, 2011 pg. 5). The theory of a close relationship between art and culture is currently by supported by multiple archeologists who are continuously discovering caves covered in

Teotihuacan is an interesting tourist destination, as it also doubles as an archaeological site that gives the tourist a view into the past of Mexican civilization. Considering Latin America as a whole is relatively new to the tourism industry, and taking into account that tourism plays such a huge role in Mexico’s annual income, it is imperative that all implications of tourism be considered. That being said, the implications of Teotihuacan’s changing landscape should also be considered through the archaeological lens. As Margarita Díaz-Andreu puts it, archaeological tourism and ethics are often two separate fields that are not considered to go hand in hand by many scholars (Díaz-Andreu, 225). Yet, the role of archaeologists in shaping the

Archaeology of Religious Artifacts Claudette James Sam Houston State University   Literature Review Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) has a recurring themes of manipulation of power and archaeology of religious sites. The movie opens with a scene of college archaeology professor, Dr. Indiana Jones, in the jungle of South America. Set in 1939, the movie follows the adventures of Dr. Jones, as known as Indy, on the quest into a South American temple in search of a golden statue that Indiana Jones nearly died trying to cover from the temple. Only to have it taken away by his nemesis, French archaeologist René Belloq. His knack for adventure and getting into hair raising and dangerous situations can be seen throughout the movie.

2. Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans are iconic archaeologists who discovered ancient artifacts that contains knowledge about ancient civilizations. The archaeologists had same ambition to discover Mediterranean treasure, but they had different techniques of obtaining them resulting them to be distinctive towards scholars and how their actions made contribution to the archaeology. Heinrich Schliemann did successful obtain valuable artifacts but, he earned them recklessly where he demolished most of the surroundings from ancient ruins without considering to restore the historical remnants. According to Penelope J.E Davies’s “Schliemann’s excavation technique destructive and considered Schliemann himself little more than a treasure hunter.

Han and Roman tombs have been discovered by historians, but the interpretations of what each tomb means do not coincide. Understanding an ancient empire’s artifacts requires understanding the culture in order to make sense of what the artifacts are conveying. Items that allow historians to understand past lives are letters, books, paintings, and tombs, but when looking at imperial artifacts, it is difficult to understand the purpose of such items as it is not clear what the significance of the artifacts are without first understanding and exploring the life of citizens during the times at which those artifacts were present in their lives. Tombs during the Chinese and Roman Empires cause difficulty in understanding what they truly mean. The difference in status during both the Chinese and Roman empires cause the items and structure of the tombs to show that those differences in status were still part of death and provide sense of what the tombs were trying to convey. In other words, the difference in status of the citizens during the Han and Roman Empires, allows the tombs to make sense, but more importantly, it shows that both the empires wanted to continue the social differences that were present in their empires in their death and afterlife.

Ancient artifacts tell us much to all of what we know about our worlds past, these crucial remnants of past cultures allow us to physically see what was essential and valued by these ancient peoples. Artifacts tell us about suspicions, beliefs, everyday life and everything in between — without these crucial remnants of culture, we could not even begin to understand what was before us. Although these artifacts are useful for learning and understanding ancient civilizations, there is much debate about the morality of other countries buying and “owning” these historical pieces. Every civilization, past and present leaves behind a cultural trail everywhere it goes thus making exploration of different countries so very easy.

cultures. The prominent role of ethnic research in archaeology makes sense because it re affirmed the long-held archaeological tenet that culturally discrete peoples could be identified by their specific objects. Orser continues by saying that the basis for identifying archaeological cultures linked distinct peoples and their unique artifacts. This quite Interesting because objects from the past, some maybe valuable brings about a sense of culture.