Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:51:18.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Between antiquarians and archaeologists — continuities and ruptures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Alain Schnapp
Alain Schnapp*
Affiliation:
Institut national d'histoire de l'art, 2 rue Vivienne, 75002 Paris, France.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The current renewal of interest in the history of archaeology can be explained in several ways, and notably in view of the extraordinary extension of the discipline's objects and methods. In the last decades, the most far-flung regions of the earth have been subjected to systematic exploration, radiometric dating techniques have continually improved, DNA studies have contributed to the transformations of biological anthropology, and indeed the very process of human evolution has heen cast in new light by the changing boundaries between humanity and animality. A natural science for many founding fathers of prehistory, a social science for those who emphasize its anthropological dimensions, archaeology has remained for others a historical discipline by virtue of its proximity to ancient languages and inscriptions. At one end of the spectrum, some archaeologists see themselves as specialists in material culture, able to deal with ohjects, both ancient and modern, as simultaneously technical and semiotic systems. At the other end, there are those who will only put their faith in the detailed approach of singular, particular cultures. To put the matter in extreme terms; it seems as if there existed a universalist archaeology standing in opposition to a plethora of incompatible and irreducible vernacular archaeologies.

Keywords

antiquarianismarchaeological practicestratigraphytypologytechnologyhistory of archaeology
Type
Special section: Ancestral Archives: Explorations in the History of Archaeology
Information
Antiquity , Volume 76 , Issue 291 , March 2002 , pp. 134 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alcina Franch, J. 1995. Arqueologos o Antiquarios: Historia antigua de la Arqueologia en la America Espagnola. Barcelona: Ediciones del Serbal.Google Scholar
Caylus, A.C. de. 1752–1757. Recueil d’Aritiquités égyptiennes, étrusques, grecques et romaines. Paris: Desaint & Salliant.Google Scholar
Chang, K. C. 1986. Archaeology of Ancient China. 4 th edition. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cunnally, J. 1999. Images of the illustrious: the numismatic presence in the Renaissance. Princeton (NJ): Princeton Universily Press.Google Scholar
Daniel, G. & Renfrew, C.. 1986. The idea of prehistory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Gohau, G. 1990. Les sciences de la Terre aux XVII° et XVIII° siècles: Naissance de la géologie. Paris: Alhin Michel.Google Scholar
Gomaa, F. 1973. Chaemwese Sohn Ramses II und Hoher Priester von Memphis. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Klein, L. 1973. On major aspects of the interrelationship of archeology and ethnology, Current anthropology 14: 311–20.Google Scholar
Klein, L. 1977. A panorama of theoretical archeology, Current anthropology 18: 1–42.Google Scholar
Landau, M. 1991. Narratives of human evolution. New Haven (CT): Yale Univesity Press.Google Scholar
Larsen, M. T. 1996. The Conquest of Assyria, Excavations in an antique Land 1840–1860. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1971. Préhistoire de 1’art Occidental. Paris: Mazenod.Google Scholar
Marchand, S. 1996. Down from Olympus: Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750–1970. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Momigleano, A. 1950. Ancient history and the antiquarian, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 13: 283–315.Google Scholar
Müller, C. O. 1830. Handbuch der Archäologie der Kunst. Breslau.Google Scholar
Murray, T. (ed.). 1999. Encyclopedia of archaeology. The great archaeologists. Oxford/Santa Barbara (CA): ABC- CLIO.Google Scholar
Murray, T., 2001. Encyclopedia of archaeology. History and discoveries. Oxford/Santa Barbara (CA): ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
Pomian, K. 1987. Collectionneurs, amateurs et curieux, Paris-Venise: XVI°-XVIII° siècle. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Popkin, R. 1987. Isaac de Lapeyrère. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Schnapp, A. 1996. The discovery of the past. London: British Museum Press.Google Scholar
Starck, C. B. 1880. Systematik und Ceschichte der Archäologie der Kunst. Leipzig: W. Engelmann.Google Scholar
Stoczkowski, W. 1994. Anthropologie naïve, anthropologic savante: de l’origine de l’homme, de l’imagination et des idées reçues. Paris: Editions CNRS.Google Scholar
Stoczkowski, W. 2002. Explaining human origins. Myth, imagination and conjecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. 1989. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge Univursity Press.Google Scholar