Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:16:37.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field survey methods in Central Italy (Etruria and Umbria)

Between local knowledge and regional traditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Nicola Terrenato
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The existence of regional traditions, in terms of methods and practices, has been an accepted fact in social sciences with a longer history than archaeology. In disciplines like anthropology and archaeology, with their strong emphasis on the description of phenomena that are peculiar to a given regional context, the development of a set of methodologies common to scholars dealing with the same region (a methodological ‘local knowledge’) has long been regarded as a natural tendency. It was only as a result of the main thrust connected with the appearance of processual archaeology that the idea (or should we say the myth?) of a universal methodology, i. e. one applicable to all contexts and periods, was developed. Thus, between the 1960s and the early 1980s, in parallel with a very positive standardization and intensification of archaeological techniques, a great effort went into the quest for an ultimate and universal field methodology (Binford 1964). As a result, a very wide agreement was reached fairly soon in some areas; for instance, as far as excavation is concerned, a kind of common practice was established, thanks to figures like Ph. Barker (1977) and E. C. Harris (1979). For some reason field survey has experienced a far less unilinear evolution, with sharp debates arising ever since the earliest attempts at a definition of a modern methodology (see for example the entertaining Hope-Simpson versus Cherry controversy, or the even more amusing debate imagined in Flannery 1976, 131–136).

Type
Special Section
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , December 1996 , pp. 216 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1996

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

Andreussi, M., 1978: Vicus Matrini, Rome.Google Scholar
Attolini, I., Cambi, F., Castagna, M., Celuzza, M., Fentress, E., Perkins, Ph. and Regoli, E., 1991: Political geography and productive geography between the valleys of the Albegna and the Fiora in northern Etruria, in Barker, G. and Lloyd, J. (eds), Roman landscapes. Archaeological survey in the Mediterranean region, London (Archaeological monographs of the British School at Rome 2), 142–152.Google Scholar
Azzena, G., and Tascio, M., 1995: Il sistema informativo territoriale per la carta archeologica d'ltalia, in Marchi, M. L. and Sabbadini, G. (eds), Venusia, Firenze, 281–297.Google Scholar
Barker, G., Coccia, S., Jones, S. and Sitzia, J., 1986: The Montarrenti survey, 1985. Integrating archaeological, environmental and historical data, Archeologia medievale 13, 291–320.Google Scholar
Barker, Ph., 1977: Techniques of archaeological excavation, London.Google Scholar
Binford, L., 1964: A consideration of archaeological research design, American antiquity 28, 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cambi, F., and Fentress, E., 1988: Il progetto topografico Ager Cosanus – Valle dell'Albegna, in Noyé, G. (ed.), Structures de l'habitat et occupation du sol dans les pays Méditerranéens, Rome-Madrid (MEFRA 105), 165–179.Google Scholar
Cambi, F., and Fentress, E., 1989: Villas to castles. First millennium demography in the Albegna Valley, in Randsborg, K. (ed.), The birth of Europe, Rome (Analecta Romana Instituti Danici Supplementum XVI), 74–86.Google Scholar
Cambi, F., forthcoming: Archaeological visibility and multi-stage work, in Francovich, R. and Patterson, H. (eds), Methodological issues in Mediterranean landscape archaeology. Artefact studies, Oxford.Google Scholar
Cambi, F., and Terrenato, N., 1994: Introduzione alls'archeologia dei paesaggi, Roma.Google Scholar
Carver, M., 1990: Digging for data, in Francovich, R. and Manacorda, D. (eds), Lo scavo archeologico. Dalla diagnosi alls'edizione, Florence, 45–120.Google Scholar
Cherry, J.C., 1983: Frogs around the pond, in Keller, D.R. and Rupp, D.W. (eds), Archaeological survey in the Mediterranean region, Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 155), 375–416.Google Scholar
Coccia, S., and Mattingly, D., 1992: Settlement history, environment and human exploitation of an intermontane basin in the central Apennines: the Riety survey 1988–1991, Part I, Papers of the British School at Rome 60, 213–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coccia, S., and Mattingly, D., 1995: Settlement history, environment and human exploitation of an intermontane basin in the central Apeninnes: the Riety survey 1988–1991, Part II, Papers of the British School at Rome 63, 105–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coltano, 1986: Terre e paduli. Reperti documenti immagini per la storia di Coltano, Pontedera.Google Scholar
Cucini, C., 1985: Topografia del territorio delle valli del Pecora e dell'Alma, in Francovich, R. (ed.), Scarlino I. Storia e territorio, Florence, 147–335.Google Scholar
Dommelen, P. van, 1992: Una riconsiderazione di ricognizioni estensive. II caso dello Scarlino-survey, in Bernardi, M. (ed.), L'archeologia del paesaggio, Florence (Atti del IV ciclo di lezioni sulla ricerca applicata in campo archeologico, Certosa di Pontignano (Siena), 14–26 gennaio 1991), 859–876.Google Scholar
Fentress, E., forthcoming: What are we counting for?, in Francovich, R. and Patterson, H. (eds), Methodological issues in Mediterranean landscape archaeology. Artefact studies, Oxford.Google Scholar
Fish, S.K., and Kowalewski, S.A.(eds), 1990: The archaeology of regions, Washington.Google Scholar
Flannery, K.(ed.), 1976: The early Mesoamerican village, New York.Google Scholar
Harris, E. C., 1979: Principles of archaeological stratigraphy, London.Google Scholar
Lamberg-Karlovski, C.C., 1989: Introduction, in Lamberg-Karlovski, C.C. (ed.), Archaeological thought in America, Cambridge, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, C., and Stoddart, S., 1994: Territory, time and state: the archaeological development of the Gubbio basin, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mari, Z., 1983: Tibur III, Florence (Forma Italiae 17).Google Scholar
Mari, Z., 1991: Tibur IV, Florence (Forma Italiae 35).Google Scholar
Moreland, J., 1987: The Farfa survey. A second interim report, Archeologia medievale 14, 409–418.Google Scholar
Muzzioli, M. P., 1980: Cures Sabini, Florence.Google Scholar
Pasquinucci, M., 1992: Ricerche topografico-archeologiche in aree dell'Italia settentrionale e centrale, in Bernardi, M. (ed.), Ls'archeologia del paesaggio, Florence (Atti del IV ciclo di lezioni sulla ricerca applicata in campo archeologico, Certosa di Pontignano (Siena), 14–26 gennaio 1991), 525–543.Google Scholar
Plog, S., Plog, F. and Wait, W., 1978: Decision making in modern surveys, Schiffer, M. (ed.) Advances in archaeological method and theory 1, New York, 383–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, T. W., 1979: The changing landscapes of southern Etruria, London.Google Scholar
Quilici Gigli, S., 1970: Tuscana, Roma (Forma Italiae 2).Google Scholar
Rasmussen, T., 1991: Tuscania and its territory, in Barker, G. and Lloyd, J. (eds), 1991: Roman landscapes. Archaeological survey in the Mediterranean region, London (Archaeological monographs of the British School at Rome 2), 106–114.Google Scholar
Regoli, E., and Terrenato, N., 1989: Dall'Albegna al Cecina, in Pasquinucci, M. and Menchelli, S. (eds), La cartografia archeologica, Pisa, 207–215.Google Scholar
Tartara, P., and Cabasino, E., forthcoming: Torrimpietra, Florence.Google Scholar
Terrenato, N., 1992: La ricognizione della Val di Cecina, in Bernardi, M. (ed.), L'archeologia del paesaggio, Florence (Atti del IV ciclo di lezioni sulla ricerca applicata in campo archeologico, Certosa di Pontignano (Siena), 14–26 gennaio 1991), 561–565.Google Scholar
Terrenato, N., and Ammerman, A.J., 1996: Visibility and site recovery in the Cecina valley survey, Italy, Journal of field archaeology 23, 91–109.Google Scholar
Terrenato, N., forthcoming: The visibility of artefact scatters and the interpretation of field survey results. Towards the analysis of incomplete distributions, in Francovich, R. and Patterson, H. (eds), Methodological issues in Mediterranean landscape archaeology. Artefact studies, Oxford.Google Scholar
Torelli, M. (ed), 1992: Atlante dei siti archeologici della Toscana, Roma.Google Scholar
Valenti, M., 1995: Il Chianti senese, Siena.Google Scholar
Vecchiano, 1988: Il fiume, la campagna, il mare. Reperti documenti immagini per la storia di Vecchiano, Pontedera.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, A., 1991: Visibility factors affecting artefact recovery in the Agro Pontino survey, in Voorrips, A., Loving, S. and Kamermans, H., The Agro Pontino survey project, methods and preliminary results, Amsterdam (Studies in prae- and protohistorie 6), 87–97.Google Scholar