finley archaelogy and history
Post on 18-Nov-2014
Embed Size (px)
Archaeology and History Author(s): M. I. Finley Source: Daedalus, Vol. 100, No. 1, Historical Studies Today (Winter, 1971), pp. 168-186 Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20023997 Accessed: 09/08/2009 22:44Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact email@example.com.
The MIT Press and American Academy of Arts & Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Daedalus.
Momigliano recalling ( and my Economic Allexternal
his elegant obituary the "unforgettable impression" ) generation by the publication History of the Roman Empire: and indeed was,was unusual. We were
of Mikhail on
by of his in 1926 of the Social and students
in the book. Evento books on
cient history where the archaeological evidence, if used at all, was never a lavish series of plates intro presented and explained to the reader. Here duced us directly to the archaeological evidence; and the caption of each us understand what one could learn from apparently plate really made items . . . Rostovtzeff delighted and surprised us by what insignificant seemed to us his uncanny gift of calling ancient things to life. He guided us through the streets of Rome, Pompeii, N?mes and Tr?ves and showedhow the ancients had lived.1
in some later the situation has radically altered there are still too many books written about respects. Although in which receives no ancient history the archaeological evidence more in the presentation than lip service, not merely but also in the historian's own study, it is also true that classical and Near East ern historians, as a whole, are much more conscious of, and knowl than they were when Ros evidence about, archaeological edgeable Half tovtzefFs possesses book If it is hard to think of anyone since who appeared.2 his gift of the illuminating caption, that is sad but not very is serious is that the demands made What by historians of
and the methods of and archaeology, employing in ancient history, have not ad evidence presenting archaeological for Rostovtzeff, and often vanced much beyond what was possible behind. Yet in the same half-century itself, at its archaeology lag to have and historians best, has advanced immeasurably, ought advanced with it. 168
significant. upon antiquity
Archaeology and Historyit is not my intention in this essay to produce a catalogue soon become it would boring and along these lines; to the future, there are two central ques unilluminating. Looking current trends in archaeol tions, inmy judgment. The first iswhether are so far from the kinds of ogy questions historians have departing However, of grievances that the gap between the two put to archaeologists traditionally soon be widened rather than narrowed. That will be my con will cern in the first section; to my mind, at least, there is a close kinship with the problems created by the trend toward "serial history" name it is called ) dealt with elsewhere in the present (by whatever volume. Then I shall go to my second question, limited to classical to alone: What is it that the classical historian archaeology ought and how successfully be asking of archaeological evidence today, are the from their side, adjusting their own older archaeologists, to these new demands? in this discus aims and techniques Implicit even of an sion is the assumption that contemporary historians, new kinds of are is who Anyone tiquity, asking questions. happy or with to life" (I ancient with kings and battles "calling things resort to a caricature) will find the discussion wholly deliberatelyirrelevant.
in the humanities In common with other and social disciplines the appearance of being in a crisis. That studies, archaeology gives is attested by the spate of books and articles with such titles as in Archaeology.3 New Perspectives is a At the simplest level, there reaction within the discipline the familiar excursions strong against or art into prehistoric that are economics, appreciation religion, nor controlled or neither grounded in, adequate knowl by, theory is a new mood of austerity, even of pessimism. It may There edge. seem "hard doctrine to some writes Stuart Piggott, but people," seem to me in almost every "the observational data of prehistory and more capable of varied interpreta way to be more ambiguous, to historians. What than the normal run of material available tions, sur we have at our as is the accidentally prehistorians, disposal, durable remnants of material which we interpret as culture, viving best we may, and inevitably the peculiar quality of this evidence dictates the sort of information we can obtain from it. Furthermore, we in terms of our own intellectual make-up, interpret the evidence as it is conditioned the period and culture within which we were by 169
DAEDALUS our social and cultural our current assump brought up, background, tions and presuppositions, and our age and status."4 One example the urgent necessity for such "hard demonstrating doctrine" merits examination?the remarkable fable of the Great For Jacquetta Hawkes Mother Goddess. that goddess was so omni in Bronze and omnipotent Crete that the (Minoan) present Age civilization itself is labeled a "predominantly feminine force." The case rests on a group of small Neolithic less figurines, averaging as follows: than two inches in height, which she describes "The of the religious life of these Stone Age farmers statuettes of formalized of women (carved or very largely in their homes or sometimes which modelled) provided they kept with sacred houses of their own. In making these images they called to the reproductive them huge breasts attention function, giving material consist evidences and often the mountainous and buttocks, bellies of advanced preg set them in a Moreover nancy. they usually squatting position, which at that time may have been the accepted for childbirth."5 position about feminine and mas from Miss Hawkes's private fancy Apart her interpretation is a of the figurines culine forces in civilizations, restatement in had become of what received doctrine virtually It has now been shattered beyond hope of rescue by archaeology.6 of Peter Ucko's book on the figurines.7 the publication of Neolithic Cretan anthropomorphic figurines 103. Of these, only 28 are certainly female, 5 cannot be classified, and 28 sexless; the remainder male, primarily state. They of their fragmentary and because sit, stand, kneel, as well as squat. "The majority of female figures have close crouch are flat and small and which set breasts which project very little and anyway the assessment "is almost always largely from the body," come two from houses have any Only figurines subjective." can be identified in Crete, none from any structure which where as as a shrine. the find site can be described only Usually "general debris." And there are also numerous animal figurines. habitation The received view is thus an extreme case of the type that D. L. The known total number was by 1969 Clarke, a leading Young Turk in the field, criticized when he wrote, that we are logically "The degree of confidence justified in placing is often undermined in many by archaeological generalizations of observed failure to specify the proportion cases, the variety of or the existence of circumstances examples."8 The wonder conflicting to examine is that no one before Ucko had bothered systematically all the 103 Cretan 170 figurines.9 Now "archaeologists and students of
Archaeology and Historyto "overhaul present theories very but it is not mere Besser doubt they must, critically."10 Beyond as as well to point out that some of us?archaeologists wisserei and anthropologists?have historians been challenging the Mother Goddess for years. Even without Ucko's breakdown, other methodo prehistoric religion" logical objections Goddess devotees that the Mother instance, to explain the complete disap in the Minoan of these figurines and offered no pearance period, for their vast superstructure foundation other than the vaguest about the "meaning" of big breasts and heavy subjective verbiage It should be recorded that Ucko had published buttocks. his Cretan as 1962 in the authoritative as official organ of the analysis early little visible Institute,11 with Royal Anthropological impact. do we interpret such remains as the anthropomorphic How, then, effort figurines? The had been no made raised?for are asked
kind of Young Turks reject Piggott's archaeological "The argument," writes L.