• Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage

Publisher Summary This chapter discusses the type I and type II processes, that is, processes intervening between behavioral and discard assemblages and between archaeological and sample assemblages, respectively. These two processes conform to the now familiar C-transforms of Schiffer (1976:14–15), that is, cultural processes responsible for the formation, destruction, and sampling of the archaeological record. Behavioral archaeology continues to be an imposing feature on the archaeological landscape and, judging from the publication program of the titular founder of the new archaeology, it makes a strong claim to be the normal science of contemporary archaeology. From its inception, behavioral archaeology has been allied to the general goals of anthropological science, namely, to explain (understand) regularities and differences in cultural behavior. In the case of archaeology, these goals are pursued on the basis of observations made of the archaeological record, which itself consists of the residues of cultural behavior. In practice rather than in terms of stated general theoretical goals, behavioral archaeology has prospered on the unexamined optimism of this tenet. Its practitioners have emphasized that the archaeological record is a complicated transformation of past behavioral systems, that the nature of this transformation has not been adequately made explicit, and that such explication is a methodological requisite for any reliable inferences relating behavior and its material residues.

The appearance of Postprocessualism and the fragmentation of archaeology into a variety of subfields are two symptoms of a serious crisis in the discipline generated by the recognition that archaeology has not achieved its century and a half old goal of becoming scientific. The existence of archaeology itself may well hang in the balance. I assess the reasons why archaeology has failed to achieve its scientific aspirations and assay the feasibility of the goal itself A scientific archaeology is possible, but not near at hand nor will it closely resemble existing sciences or the visions of most New Archaeologists.

Indice Gli Dei e i Mortali. Scene di culto e manifestazioni sportive connesse con feste religiose 3 Nomi e forme di vasi attici 10 Vasi greci: contesti e funzioni 17 Storia della produzione ceramica greca 22 La partenza del guerriero verso la battaglia 29 Il Pittore di Lýandros nel Museo Archeologico di Firenze: la kýlix a fondo bianco con Afrodite 35 Il Vaso François: scoperta e restauro di un capolavoro della ceramica attica 38 Il Sarcofago delle Amazzoni: l’incontro tra due civiltà 46 Il c.d. Apollo Milani e il c.d. Apollino Milani 53 Questo documento non rispecchia l'attuale disposizione del Museo, ma vuole rappresentare uno storico dell'attività del MAF negli anni passati.

The most fundamental goal of archaeology is the documentation of the physical remains of the human past. Another key goal is placing past humanity in a historical, geographical, and chronological context. The explanation of past variability and change in the human condition is another goal that drives the practice of archaeology. Finally, the preservation and management of the physical remains of the human past and using the archaeological record to plan for a sustainable future constitute other goals of archaeology.

The report aims to offer a preliminary framework of knowledge on zoo archaeological topics in the North Eastern Italy during the Roman age through a comparative data analysis from high ground and valley floor villages The purpose is also connecting archaeological and zoo archaeological data with other kind of source if possible The faunistic data show the prevalence of ovine and pigs related to environmental vocation and also political economical and cultural influences in the complex relation among production distribution and consumption

Historical archaeology is a multi-disciplinary endeavor that includes, at a minimum, the combination of textual accounts and excavated information. The field is rapidly expanding in Ireland, and archaeologists are now examining numerous sites ranging in date from the early English plantation to twentieth-century industrialization.

I propose that a feminist approach will enrich archaeology in the Southeast and Midsouth. Feminist archaeology starts by taking the lives of women seriously in thinking about past human societies. This standpoint has implications for all topics of interest for Southeastern archaeologists: subsistence patterns, craft production, exchange, development of political systems, warfare, ritual, and so forth. Feminist archaeologists are also self-reflexive about and alert to conditions of work in the profession of archaeology. They pay attention to the importance of the intersection of gender, age, status, and other aspects of personal identity and to the need to accept ambiguity in interpretation. I review how a feminist archaeology might be applied to the archaeology of the South and what risks a feminist archaeology might raise.