The expeditions removing and excavating antiquities at the site of Xanthos in Lycia (1841–4) have been highlighted by scholars as setting a new precedent for whole-sale collection from a single site, and the support – through the national museum and the Royal Navy – of the British government for archaeological endeavours. Questions remain, however, regarding the failure of the first mission to remove the antiquities. According to the current narrative, the blame rests on the navy officer assigned to support Charles Fellows. Based on archival research, this article presents the concerns that Commander Thomas Graves had with the undertaking. His perspective sheds new light on how ill-planned the initial attempts were, and consequently how much was learned. The obstacles encountered in the first Xanthos expedition spurred developments in archaeological practice, introduced by people of non-academic professions.

The later career of British prehistorian Peggy Piggott, latterly Guido, is evaluated in this article, in a bid to further develop our understanding of women's participation in twentieth-century British archaeology. After WWII, when her husband Stuart Piggott was appointed to the Abercromby Chair in Edinburgh, she worked to assist his role. By the early 1950s, she had co-directed and published eight hillfort excavations, advancing our understanding of prehistoric architecture before the advent of radiocarbon dating. The authors consider Peggy Piggott's contribution as a fieldworker, promoting open-area excavation and influencing the next generation. We also consider her thinking, as an early advocate for continuity and Childe's diffusionism, in contrast to the invasionist views of Christopher Hawkes and Stuart Piggott. The authors reflect on the role her marriage played in enabling and restricting her career, her work in 1960s Italy, her expertise in ancient glass beads, and her activity in retirement.

Archaeological nomenclature influences the classification of cultural phases, objects and related behavioural interpretations. The term ‘Madrasien’, synonymous with the Acheulian, was a key concept in early studies of Indian prehistory, encompassing notions of geographical/administrative boundaries, tool types, cultural identities and migrations. Madrasien was coined in 1931 by the Austrian prehistorian Oswald Menghin and established in South Asian prehistory by V.D. Krishnaswami. Here, the authors trace the evolution of the term, situating it within the wider discourses in Indian prehistory and examining its role in shaping ideas on South Asian Palaeolithic nomenclatures. The Madrasien was gradually replaced by the current medley of African, European and Southeast Asian terminologies.

This article concerns the development of archaeology and museology, in the Ottoman Empire, Turkey, and Greece, through the life and career of Théodore Macridy. Macridy participated in knowledge transfer in more than one discipline and more than one country. Through his links with Western academic circles in archaeology and museology, he made a significant contribution to their development in the Ottoman Empire, Turkey, and Greece. Living between the Ottoman and Greek epistemic communities as an Ottoman citizen of Greek origin, he excavated numerous sites of the Ottoman Empire, worked at the Ottoman Imperial Museum, and contributed to the foundation of the Benaki Museum in Athens at the end of his career. This makes him a good example of an Ottoman Greek scholar whose liminal identity led to his relative neglect in both Greek and Turkish archaeology and museology.

Billy Smith and Charley Eaton were mudlarks in London. In 1857 they began to manufacture counterfeit antiquities. Their creations displayed many significant errors and anachronisms, and some archaeologists were immediately sceptical. Nevertheless, other leading experts were convinced that Billy and Charley’s supposed discoveries were authentic archaeological finds. The ensuing debate resulted in an inconclusive court case. Eventually a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London used subterfuge to expose the fraud. Even after this, Billy Smith and Charley Eaton continued producing forgeries for another decade. This paper explores how the forgeries were made, why they generated controversy, how the fraud was detected and how Billy Smith and Charley Eaton could produce their forgeries over such a long time-span.

This article focuses on the production of archaeological knowledge within the fieldwork archive. Archaeological archives do not always reflect the reality of evidence uncovered during fieldwork processes or even the fieldwork processes themselves. This includes the many different agents and agencies, which are crucial to the construction of archaeological knowledge and their representation—or lack of representation—in the archive. Archaeological archives impose restrictions on how knowledge is included in a collection, the way it is recorded, and the fieldwork processes used. Therefore, this article considers the way in which the processes of archival documentation produce, transform, and construct archaeological knowledge. The main examples are from the British School of Archaeology in Egypt's excavations at Abydos between 1921 and 1922, often referred to as the Tombs of the Courtiers and directed by Flinders Petrie. Looking at the different contexts of an excavation archive, from before its creation to its ongoing curation and use, can reveal significant aspects not just of the history of archaeology but also on many of the ongoing recording methods and processes still used in the field today.

How often, and in what contexts, have archaeologists discussed racism over the last four decades? Do societal events lead to sustained discussions of racism among the academic community? Here, the authors seek to answer these questions by applying computational text analysis methods to 68176 abstracts from 41 meetings of the Society for American Archaeology. Discussions of racism are found to be rare—usually a passing mention in the context of broader social issues. Historical archaeologists have addressed racism more frequently than other archaeologists. The results form a baseline against which the discipline's engagement with racism as a research theme and with anti-racist strategies might be tracked.

Our professional understanding of the archaeological record is informed through academic research interest, the nature (tensions of time/money/location) of cultural resource management, and the ability of archaeologists to fully access diverse forms of data potentially available to them. Knowledge of eastern Colorado is poorly known, given that 40% of the state is publicly owned (federal and state) and most professional work occurs on land administered by federal agencies in western Colorado. Given this research disparity, we argue that professional archaeologists in eastern Colorado would certainly benefit from expanding their research networks to include the efforts of avocational archaeologists. Our article describes how artifact collectors have searched eastern Colorado for the past 100 years; although their methods differ from professional approaches, their cumulative efforts provide a nuanced read of the archaeological record. Differences relate to increased time spent on sites, access to a variety of landforms, and repeated visits over the long term. We present a case study on playa lake archaeology to emphasize these concepts and provide suggestions as to how archaeologists can create better partnerships to unlock potentially novel perspectives of the archaeological record.

Examination of Philipp von Stosch's documentation of engraved gems, discovered in previously unknown archival sources in the Princes Czartoryski Museum in Krakow and other public and private collections, considerably advances our understanding of the move from antiquarianism to proto-archaeology in the eighteenth century.

Desde hace unos 25 años, en Argentina comenzó el desarrollo de un nuevo campo de investigación arqueológica centrado en los espacios que sucesivamente funcionaron como fronteras interétnicas y/o territorios rurales en la región pampeana, el norte de Patagonia y sus inmediaciones, desde la colonia hasta la consolidación del estado-nación, a fines del siglo diecinueve. Este campo de estudio, en sentido amplio “arqueología de los espacios fronterizos y rurales”, se encuentra consolidado dentro de la arqueología histórica argentina mediante un número creciente de proyectos y el trabajo sistemático de distintos equipos que, desde diferentes perspectivas teórico-metodológicas, han recorrido múltiples caminos. Aquí se efectúa un análisis crítico sobre el desarrollo, el estado actual y las perspectivas de dicha especialidad, centrado en dos ejes: (1) su surgimiento y evolución y (2) el perfil y la inserción de los equipos de investigación. Ambos ejes muestran su gran dinamismo que se refleja en la diversificación sostenida de los temas, espacios y períodos abordados. El análisis pone en diálogo este nuevo campo, uno de los rasgos más destacados de la arqueología argentina en las últimas décadas, tanto con las coyunturas académico-institucionales y los contextos históricos locales como con el ámbito mayor de la arqueología histórica sudamericana.

The famous greenstone figure known as the Tuxtla Statuette is one of only 12 objects known to bear an epi-Olmec inscription and was the first to become known to scholarship. For more than a century its original find-spot was imprecisely and erroneously identified as lying in the township of San Andrés Tuxtla or, more generally, in the Tuxtla Mountains. Correspondence in the National Anthropology Archives of the Smithsonian Institution documents that the figure was found on the Hacienda de Hueyapan de Mimendi, near the colossal head of Tres Zapotes. Archival research in Mexico's National Museum of Anthropology and the Archivo General del Estado de Veracruz, as well as interviews with descendants of owners of the Hacienda de Hueyapan and the statuette, allow us to confirm several features of the Smithsonian correspondence. The data indicate that the statuette was found within or very near the epi-Olmec regional center of Tres Zapotes and within the township of Santiago Tuxtla.

After a heyday in the 1970s and 1980s, probability sampling became much less visible in archaeological literature as it came under assault from the post-processual critique and the widespread adoption of “full-coverage survey.” After 1990, published discussion of probability sampling rarely strayed from sample-size issues in analyses of artifacts along with plant and animal remains, and most textbooks and archaeological training limited sampling to regional survey and did little to equip new generations of archaeologists with this critical aspect of research design. A review of the last 20 years of archaeological literature indicates a need for deeper and broader archaeological training in sampling; more precise usage of terms such as “sample”; use of randomization as a control in experimental design; and more attention to cluster sampling, stratified sampling, and nonspatial sampling in both training and research.

This article discusses the American Compañía Stanford’s efforts to drill an oil well on the outskirts of the archaeological site of El Tajín, Mexico, during the 1930s. Drawing on recent scholarly efforts to think beyond archaeology and the nation state, this article problematizes the notion of a unitary state behind the concept of nationalist archaeology, the constitution of archaeology and extractive industry as separate spheres, and their apparent mutual exclusivity. Exploring the negotiations between site guards, archaeologists, inspectors, oil company officials and labourers shows that different state actors worked at cross-purposes, and that the nominally separate spheres of nationalist archaeology and foreign oil extraction were in fact characterized by the sharing of infrastructure, equipment, expertise and labour. Consequently, this article advocates for close attention to the administration and management of archaeology in specific historical contexts, demonstrating that it is more reasonable to assume archaeology’s imbrications with the nation state and extractive industries.

As an academic discipline, archaeology is deeply rooted in the cultural, social, and political practices of Western Europe of the nineteenth century. The emergence of local scholarly communities in other parts of the continent tends to be described as a process that saw the even spread of ideas and concepts in their original form. This further implies a uniform, unilinear sequence of paradigms (culture-historical, processual, postprocessual), each with their own internal logic. However, more often than not, these transfers of disciplinary knowledge from one academic community to the other have introduced distortions of the original concepts, designed to meet the demands of the different cultural and intellectual traditions and research agendas. In this article, we explore the foundation of academic archaeology in Serbia and of the pivotal figure in this process – Miloje M. Vasić, educated at German universities and considered to be the first academically trained archaeologist in the country. His adaptations of the German tradition of Classical scholarship applied to the study of the Balkan past have marked the theory and practice of archaeology in the country up to the present. This example indicates that we should seek to explore the ways in which the concepts we apply in our study of the past are articulated in particular local settings if we are to achieve a better understanding among various academic and professional communities of archaeologists across Europe.

Chinese and Western archaeologists (especially those of the anthropologically-oriented tradition) often seem to be talking past each other, not only because they are publishing in different languages, but also because of differences in theory and method. While most of the major theoretical works in Western languages are by now available in Chinese translations, hardly any English-language publications exist that explain Chinese approaches to archaeological method and theory. This article helps to bridge the gap by introducing the history of debates on archaeological method in China to a Western audience, focusing particularly on issues of typology and classification. Discussing in detail the merits—and issues—of approaches suggested by four of the most influential Chinese archaeologists (Li Chi, Xia Nai, Su Bingqi, and K. C. Chang), this article provides a deeper understanding of the preconditions of archaeological research in China. It also suggests future directions for archaeological work by local and foreign archaeologists, including but also going beyond the classification of the rich body of artifacts coming to light in Chinese excavations.

This article examines the location and context of archaeological investigations in England between 1938 and 1945. The analysis of sources, including national inventories and contemporary journals, dispels any notion that archaeological practice was suspended during World War II, despite the absence of some leading practitioners, and reveals that a surprising amount of salvage and research fieldwork took place. Fieldwork was primarily in the south of the country; it reflects pre-war investigative trends, contemporary knowledge, opinion of the archaeological resource, and the increased threat of war-related construction work, but also the impact of immediate post-war concerns such as housing and infrastructure. Although primarily undertaken by established excavators employed by the Ministry of Works, a substantial amount of rescue work was carried out by small groups, local societies, and individuals often outside State funding, which reflects an independent culture of fieldwork that continues to the present day.

Does the curiosity of an archaeologist lead to encounters with forbidden things, inviting retribution? The learned antiquary M.R. James, writer of celebrated ghost stories, certainly thought so. In this vivid analysis, our author unearths the roots of James' impetus and compares it with that of his contemporary, Sigmund Freud. Of course, those days of paranormal terror are long gone, we are all rational now … or are we?