Evaluating and Establishing Ethnoarchaeological Theory for Anatolia
Even though the archaeology in Anatolia is quite rich and covers a long period, from prehistory to classical times, theoretical approaches surrounding it are rarely discussed. Moreover, an endeavour to interpret the data that has come about as a result of
- PDF / 162,963 Bytes
- 19 Pages / 439.37 x 666.14 pts Page_size
- 40 Downloads / 214 Views
Evaluating and Establishing Ethnoarchaeological Theory for Anatolia Nurcan Yalman
Introduction It is a matter of accepted fact that ethnoarchaeology came rather late to Turkey but it is less clear why and even how it arrived in Turkey. A discussion of the reasons for this late arrival, as well as an historical review within the context of Turkish archaeology, will be the core parts of this chapter. Ethnoarchaeology needs a sophisticated perspective to be able to nascence properly and it requires a background woven with philosophical thought, as well as a high level of consciousness in the aim of understanding the past. The endeavour to know about past societies in the world has a history as old as prehistoric times. During this long time in the history of archaeology, the differing destinations of this subject have caused variations in perspectives and methodologies. But the major developments have appeared when the aim has been changed from “to know” to “to understand”. Since it has been understood that the unidentified objects found on or under the earth belong to the people who lived in the very distant past, the value of these objects has been changed for contemporary people during the centuries. Recently, the new question of “what was the value of these objects or existences for those who made them (rather than for us?)” has given birth to a brand new perspective which is called “cognitive archaeology” today, as described by Renfrew and Bahn (1996:369). Therefore researchers have tried various ways to approach the endless questions of the unknown past that are the results of the long-term accumulation of information, controversies, debates and criticism. Once researchers started wanting to do interpretations of their data, ethnoarchaeology appeared as a sub-discipline. In David and Kramer’s book “Ethnoarchaeology in Action” (2001) it says: N. Yalman (*) Istanbul University, Prehistory Department 34459, Turkey & Centre for International Heritage Activities Steenstraat 1, Postbus 11125, 2301 EC Leiden, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] A. Marciniak and N. Yalman (eds.), Contesting Ethnoarchaeologies: Traditions, Theories, Prospects, One World Archaeology 7, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-9117-0_7, © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
125
126
N. Yalman
“Archaeological interpretation is founded and ultimately depends upon analogy..... Archaeologists draw upon their lives and upon everything they have read, heard about or seen in the search for possible analogies to the fragmentary remains they seek to interpret.” (David & Kramer, 2001:1)
These sentences summarize ethnoarchaeology as a debated, theorized and systematic way of making analogies, but to be able to perceive a “need” for ethnoarchaeological analogy, first you should have an archaeological perception that contains an “interpretation”. In this respect, the status of ethnoarchaeology is quite related to the status of archaeology, or in more general terms, the way the country looks at its own past.
The History of Archaeology
Data Loading...
