Chapter 1 Biography as Microhistory The Relevance of Private Archives for Writing the History of Archaeology ‘Marc-Antoine Kaeser Abstract Cae inersin he story of carly is sity dec shoes social and pic sdevelopments in contemporary archaeological research, This makes such historia! “undertakings particularly vulnerable to present bises. In thi spec, is arte underlines the preventive role of archival material, and especialy of private atchives (correspondence. diaries «e) Drawing on my recently published biography of Edouard Desor (181-1882) | yt show that such sources can help to fee us fom present-day categories of aals.By following the path ofthe historical subject under study, che biographer can grasp the inna logic of thought recess that ae alien to cuttent archaeology, Furthermore, weking hisory ac the mero scale oF 4 singe sient makes ic posible to encompass all the soci, poi nllecua, cultural and relgious factors which inerae in the construction of archaologcl knowledge, to gasp the ‘ungngrelacons shared by hese factors, and ao to undercore the dynamics which sustain such ‘eaions. Understood as kind of ‘microhstory cis biography requies us to transcend the anecdotal. The subjec ofthe biography ir acully not de subject ofthe sudy as much a ‘key’ that east che wider cel of pas archaeology Microhistoicalbiograpky appreciates hisry in 2 relic way, through the notions of an acor ofthe part ~ which have w be corrected hough ‘thei confronacon with che plr-individual daa of eoncexualied prosopography. Why Care about the History of Archaeology? Some Reflexive Considerations Since the beginning of che 1990s, the history of archaeology has undergone a considerable expansion (ct: Tigger 2001, Mureay 2002, Schlanger 2002). Being characenised by «formidable incase in che number of escarch projets, publications, meetings, nd exibitons rating to the as of che dscplnethroughou the wodld, chi expansion i not merely quantitative: beyond the amount of scholarship erred out, one can also noice che growing thecretcl awareness ofits practioner, aswell as an incre in the general aensionarosed. Thus, search int the history ‘of he dicpline can no longer be belted as a "hobby fr reed archailogis’, 2 comfortable recat for occasional, aneedoal paper, a it offen used to be Infact unl to the 1980s, Few studies conghr ro rise shove memorials rial, and most of then wae eather considered pPhiosophicalesays on the role and destiny of archacology (eg. Walle 1950/51, Laming. Enperaire 1964, Daniel 1975, Trigger 1989, Malina 8 Vasiek 1990),10 1 ancnves,ascesrons, acres GGatfyng as this hisoriographic trend might be, we ought vo wonder on che posible causes ‘of such an expansion. Broadly speaking, cis wend fis in with che general Bossoming of Science ‘dies, insofar at historical elecons obviously beneic from the post-modern denial ofthe satura objectiviy of cence. And in our discipline, thee historial underakings have of course taken advantage of che reacion agains the positivism or che scieatism blamed on the New [Achacology, a well ar from the globally reativs climate of pos-procesualise ends From more specifi point of view, peat tha the mode and forms ofthis expansion also stem from sever inerelatedfacors pola o contemporary circumstances wihin archacolgy Tadeed, mos ofthe themes under focus in the presen historic inverignions appear to be connected to current conditions in the police of archaeological earch, a8 well a8 to epistemological, theoretical and ethical cancers which ae the subject of curren dcbats in our discpline. TF we take, for insance, ecarch themes lke colonial archaeology and its postion within imperialist policies, gender aspects inthe past of archaeological research, che rle of archaologcal imerpreation in the constuction of national identities the more general relations beeween suchacological paradigms and contemporary philosophical trends (such 2s materialism or tvolucioniem) or ideological movements (ike communism, seis, nationalsocalism or Tiserlism), aswell a the sudy ofthe development of echniques and methods in their elationship withthe changing gol, aims and signiicance of archaeological research ~ al ches chemes Feature tn undoubsed copay, in one way or another. In ce cise in point, we shall only mention poscolonal adjustments and the opposition to ne-imperialism,feminis commiemeats co the politics of cull heritage and archacologial esach, che development of communaucrist ‘aims, he building of Europe and the resurgence of nationals he collapse ofthe Soviet mode (or foi), Geman reunification and che eirement of the last generation of Tied Reich profes aden, the ealing inc quertion of che role ofthe stare inthe management of clu herage, the cute crs of preventive archacology et In bri the causes of the curren imeres in the history of archaeology ees mainly wich theoretical, social and poidcal developmen’ in che contemporary pracice of archaeology: the prompsings of such historical undertakings appear 10 be embedded in present debates and ‘questioning within the discipline Interalist Approaches and Presentist Biases ‘The close connection berween historiographic inquires and present concerns as well as contemporary crcommtances in the field of archaeological researc i esly understandable, As tener ral, within Science studs, ici characteristic of historia investigations cared out by Practitioner ofthe dsipines unde ead ~invenigaions which are commonly termed ‘nena 2 opposed 0 “xernls? investigations caried out by profesional historians, sociologists, of phileophess of science. Ic is precy chis connection which ensures thei relevance and Significance within curren archaeological reach IF we consider the question from the sandpoint of histsial method, however, the import par played by such internal, archacologcl designs may constiute a problem oo putit plainly, bea challenge forthe scene validity of these historical underakings. For. on principle, Iisorians ate compelled to sive for detachment cowards cheirsubjece of research: a far as posible, they should leve side contemporary concerns inthe course oftheir investigations. From that poine of view, itis worth remembering that for long dime, historians and sciolgias of scence have disparaged and categrially condemned internist approaches. This ‘quevon ha been the subject of impasioned disputes. Buc evenly, afer whae constituted one Of the clsie debates of Science studies in che lat quater ofthe cwenccth century, a more ‘conaliatryposcon previled, acknowledging che efetve and specific contribution of icernaliti research in che wring of the history of science ~ especially in view of the exper skill of the practitioners in ce respective disciplines. “The aceptance of the heutsic worth of inernalism is good reason fr satisfaction, insofar at history of archaology i almost exclusively writen by archaologin. Infact, i appears chat the past of our discipline dd not and sill dos not arouse mach interest among professionals within Science suis Obviously, our hisoies of archaeology ae bsilly addressing an audience of Fellow archaeologists. But ifwe are in 2 way working ‘s-hous the fac emains nonetheless hat inorder to ensure the soundnes and efficiency of our research, we need to bide by the commonly accepted rules set by sociologise and historians of science following much election and theoretical debue. In this espec, the main obstacle to avoid appears co be presents. Being a characteristic of many internals studies, prescaism maiks out an approach which analyzes the pst fom 2 present, modern perspective, wih 2 moder agenda, aswell as wid modern concepts and ways of chought. [As 2 matter of fit, presentism leads indtecly to 2 prejudicial splicing up of hiorial research, Since presencist studies are prompced by and meet concerns speiic ro very diverse specialties of archaeological recrch, they tend to become out of teach of wc to other historians of archaeology (Kaeser 2005) ~ let alone to historian of science ia genral. Now, tht presents splicing up dashes, or at leas delys what preily constitutes the purpoe of projects sch as AREA (Archives of European Archacology) ~ that, the sexing-up of a el rach fd dedieated to the history of archaeology, where each researcher would noe be compelled to define his own method and theorecal principles ar every new stud. ‘Bar the maia defect of presents remains cht it somewhat navy scarches in che pst for unlacral answers co contemporary scenic problems. Aiming a¢ an immadiate ‘wfulnes? of historiographic inquires,’ preseatism docs noe worry af course abou anachronims ia therefore been subjected ro eloquent crc (eg. Stocking 1968, Banckaee 1988) dat need not be repeated here eis ceraialy more weil go int he posnble causes of presets surprising persistence in ‘many histories ofarchaclogy, despite the devarting indicment of profesional horns ‘The resistance of presendsm is probably due to 2 minundentanding of the nature and signifcaion of so-called “historic which is ec gsc eas the path tobe followed (Di Brio 1995, Blondiaux & Richard 1999, Mucchielt 2000: 175-76). While puting forward relatvise claims contending that nobody can ceally cut themes off fom the preset, some believe dhs undermines the very bats of hstorcism axiomatic legitimacy. Such claims are not unfounded; but they are used impropesy. For hisoricism isnot a formula: eis methodoloiel principle serving a ideal purpose onthe theoretical evel Ths, if the sms of soil esearch always remain Jina sense presents, the achievement of these aims ells for an approach that respect a8 far a peste, he principle of hire methodology. Historicism, Microhistory and Scientific Biography For the application ofhiscovcism, che main dicey lis inthe eeifcation of the categories of anayss. In che cous of thee work, historians necessarily resort to categories which are obviouly constructions, conceptual tools which they shape so apprehend real. From chat standpoint riciohisory consieues the bes aniwer, ior as ic sive to avoid che reduction of teiy ‘hough a reduction ofits own field of anys Microisory (Ginsburg 1982, Levi 19893, 1992, Revel 1996) isa rather loose and varied historical movement born asa esction against structural and quantitative hisory, which i characterised by its focus onthe unique experience of social ‘actos. Avery sll scale and from Fine acs che archive material serutnised intensively ic endeavours co reconstruc the complex web of pas ations, relations and socal neeworks. Being influenced by ethnology and culturalants its atthe ndennndingo sep ome eee tte cn he einer un om fri sete Goal ree pend sce na Ses etme, marae ty ew ; gases astane dapplee yaa do face bon al uae een “eihtisatnsdper nda corn oe EY sii ce ne snd of ily Ti Cet eine boy wbedcusel nes RETR Fede oe ecu 2000 The Coane , esha clog sod. plswclpstPlurd Dow CieLIUBD toe ofthe malin of pre ial see apes 17 GCSB Atak Dor al to Sha.butrera ey opening aliesede say cfemerng, PE, uate secteur Following Deora wit his own cximony (et Nm tik endeavoured to relate the bith and ealy development of prchistocc science from se inerir (i, 11). For the history of seience, such 2 microhisorial biography acrualy has the advantage of calling on conceptual tols which are not consucted by che historian; the categorie are inferred from che perceptions ofthe subject of the biography, whose sulbjectivigy paradoxically forms an absoltelyobjecave historical fact. While using tems ike the Clerical par, ‘amateur antquarané, or puting formar the difeeace beeweennineeenh “Century ‘amt-histoire’ and dhe modern sense of prehistory he biographer can ely on notions and ‘oncepts actully employed by che person undeesudy. Now, basing on the individual perceptions ‘of one archaeologist among many, grasping the soda epresenations he shared with a numberof Collegucs, comprehending the metning they give co the world they were living in, we most, Certainly beater understand thir ations and motives (Charter 1989, 19972, 19976) ~ and thus, the archacology they practised. Ta this specs since biography seems to be the best way co approach the ideal goal of historcsm in che hiory of scence! plnginginta dhe life experience ofa scien Fores the historian to submit himself cathe ochemess ofthe pst, instead of imposing, knowingy or not his owe. perspectives onto it The biography ofan archaclogst makes ic possible to beyond presenday (ateries and concep of modern. earch, in onder to grasp some icenal logics of thought process characerinic of patience All the more, since weing che history of archaeology atthe Small scale ofa singe scene lp rans encompass ll the social, polieal, intellectual, Cultural and eigious Factor which intersted inthe construction of archaeological knowedes. © deal the changing relations which these ots shared, and co underscore che dynamics which Sustained such latins. In short, such a mcrohisorial biography proposes a mulkconextualied reconstruction of the scien, social cultura, intllecl, poli, ideological and elgious {grounds in which pehiscovie archaeology was bred and grew 5 anew since [uci (Sind, The Relevance and Teachings of Private Archives Jost as microistory does noe amoune tothe mere adoption of 2 small scale of analysis, so are biographical account noe necessarily icohistovial. But beyond the adoption of a microhistsis approach, che interes of biogapyaleady les inthe nature ofthe potenal sourees. Thanks othe Timiced range of his sarcing pone, che biographer can cut his dependence on second-hand, historiography, nd rely above all on archival material Bsdes,biogaphic subjects often allow for[HOSRAMY As wacRoMTORY 13, Sd Gi aan x z i Reishee ey ino | | Fig L2 Howl Ds dey 10-1 Joy 180, lkgue gone, Neil Snead. ising is ian hee US Gap Survey of Mchgn Door ed dw ene rons ‘ilar ht aan yt pion, en he npataharan poppy he ae epred eran o ‘Sons the Clippers. Gis snd Meronons eae commie an abundant and varie! body of documentation - expecially thote mae cenit of the middle clases who formed the overwhelming major ofthe archaeologist? communi, upto dhe middle ofthe ewencith centuy. ‘The case of Edoud Der is a perf illstation of sich a weath of archival macrial (quanciacvely aswel a qualiaively). par from thebooks andthe ofr of hi personal iba ‘mos of his scenic panes (corrected proof, drafts and eignal manuscrpof ates and lotr) Ihave ben preserved. Paci attention wil be paid his conespondence and pate dary. While the creumstances of ther composton and heir tone vary consdenbly, such documents rnevetheles place che historian sraight into che sentxts daly actvig, The spontancisy characertic of many of chee pieas of writing digpenss the historian with poten! reconsructions; and de cllaion of thse diferent documents gives a qualified vision of the objectives, ambitions, aritades and acts of thei author ‘Whac is lef of Doors ample corcapondence (both lcs sce ail wie of les ai) amouats 9 no les than 30,00 items, which do no seem co be che esl selection, This fond ‘oasists of busines and private, a well as scenic or political mall, thus giving accesso all he faces of Dest’ life and personality. The combining of comparisons beween the leers avec the relevance and sgnicance oftheir respective content. To that purpoe, prosopogsaphy taking. ‘exch corespondents personality, a well asthe nature and the srength cF his (or hes) tes wit eso is needed,14 | cars, acetone RACHES Tn the dary he kee for atmos foty yeas (panning more than 70 nosebooks), Desor wrote down very concise comments amounting basically to adil aecoune of business done. Buc despite ie ouwatd civility, this docimene i highly informative on his actives and soil nexwork; and the words used ace to thei authors thoughts” AS we shall se below, the diary also reveals “Surprising connections beoweenconcems which che historian woud otherwise have ordered in quite distin spheres (Fig. 12) However the biographer should noe be content with those sources drey read coche character under study, {thus had co urn to "terary sources, which puc the exchanges beoween Desor and the respective individuals in perspective. This erossanaysis of testimonies from individuals or isiations having themscves direct elations with Desor (a kindof ‘riangulation) proved most ul. Through eonverse checking such + tangulatin shows the functioning of ST environment among which Desor i only a component, and enables us co asess che specifiy fr represencatviny of his though, works and actions Desor as 2 Key to the Broader Context of Emerging Prehistoric Archaeology [Apare fom the issue of appropriate dacumetaton, some individuals ae beter suited than ‘ther co microhistrial biogaphy. As we shal sec, Dsor atl presents certain eure wh take hia a mos relevant figure on al sigifican poblematis ofthe birth and first development tf prehistori scence, Bride, che scintet Deo oles the interest of having been equally active in instil and financial business, pois, and eligion~ characeiies which make him aideal ‘mediator for the above-mentioned ‘multioatextualsacion’. And in ll these differen sphere, his personal path ha been both original and turbulent, chs offering clearly concastng viewpoins and enhanced contours tothe historian Fig 13 Came Vin, Ds scan home a har Metin. apg by gue ache, 1860. Edad ‘ele imme se in ind of par aoey deli oe whi of See weeoring enon ole "hoes kw yo al nal lei regal bundes og 169, De Beer 1950.ocr as acaonsor 115 An orphan ofthe lower middle das reduced vo socal asian, Dest ead a bohemian life up to is 40s, when he suddenly became a prosperous milion, who coald exploit his fortune in favour of planthropie works and socal issue, a well ar scenic an pial inatves. A young revoluionary German stadent, he had had ro move to France ae polite efuge:seing later ia the Unzed States, where he eampaigned forthe aboion of saver he nally exabished himself in Swizerund. There, he managed an outstanding pola carer which he completed with his election tothe presidency ofthe national House of Reresenativs. In the matter of rigion, he rejeced che petite education of his youth and profesed atheism for longtime. Awakening 0 spiviualism a a consequence of his American experience, Dest eled ronal, nd even cole 2 prominea: part inthe foundation in Swierland of Liberal Poteanim, a church ‘without press noreatechism sing hi ie, oe caved doughs every corer of the European consnens his sienic esearch led him to all kinds of terns, from the Sahara Desert o the vig forests of he ‘American Gees Lakes, climbing as well the main Alpine summits on theaceaion of is wor wth his mater and former fiend Louis Aga, the ‘inventor’ of the lee Age Being Geaman by birch, French by alucaton and naturalised Swiss ctzen, mastering English an Kean languages a well, this socabe-narued man shared contacts throughout Europe and the United States, building ‘indie and business neworks ofa considerable exenc and dens (Fig. 1.3). (On th: scientific level, one can note chat being 2 selEcaughe man cid not prevent him fom reaching te heights of academic hierarchy, even afer a serous sexbac, when the whole Amevican ‘sablishmene strove eo sais him, a a esl ofa private dispar with Louis Agi. who had become the figurehead of United States science. ln this espe, his uneven path makes him a ‘extbook ee for a socologicl dy of the requirement ofthe constuction of ascent ares, as wall as che limits of dhe statu of profesional scien inthe nineenth century. Aboveall his work covers very brad spectrum, fr he did not underake reach in prchisorc archaeolog and anchropology only. Tained as a geologist and a paseoreolgit specs’ in the study of Teriry and Quaternary tecains, he wa loa complete nur in the arp meaning oF ‘the word, dealing fom eshnogrphy ro occanography o botany Furthermore, his scien stvty took very diverse ways: bese his basi and applied research, Deo actly operated ae a publicise and a popuarise of cence who became deeply iavlved in the promotion and polis of sence — ‘thus bringogc light che socal Functioning of sind esearch Tn bri hanks tothe abundance of archival maeril, as well asco ce diversity of is actives and pesoral commitments, Dsor' life and work give precious insight into numerous historical and epsenological issues. lathe sope ofthis paper, Iwill nw coneenate on some general nd theoretical lessons from such a mierahisorcal biography reparding our historicist, ‘rlsconrectaision Prehistoric Archaeology and its Original Relations with Other Sciences Inycialst approaches always tend to deal with che pat of archacology gare of the scenic the cease of Desors biography, thas eo be steed thatthe lack of boundary becwoen since and Sociery is nor imply deconsrucionist interpretation; fort isbased onthe represncatins cf che historical subjcs themselves as, quite simply, Desor did noe consider ‘cence’ and ‘aces 0 be Aisne ene. “This becemes clearer when one takes into account the meaning thas Desor gave ro his own Scientific underakngs. To him, che mision of cence applied all over: sco Tuth was actully to beche basso prc principe, poicl progres, soil justice, nd economic welfare aswel Now, since scence was ro exer its authority ove ll pets, it sustained, and 3¢ the same ime benefited from all he other acces of the scien, In Desor'sviewpoing, a ia that of mast of his contemporaries, the ‘soca’ hus dele ino science (Kaeser 2004: 466-69). ‘Context’ and the Representativty of the Biographical Subject “The decals of such a biography show thatthe petsonal path ofthe scents, his commicmens in ‘other mavers (iene, poi, commercial, or rligoue) can notably influence upon his auchacoogieal esearch and epseeology. One should nos, however, interpret such influences 8 kindof social determinism affecting the production and diffrion of cence. Ie should rather ead 15 co question che meaning of whar we ell the ‘context’ of siete research. The ‘ante in ‘question doesin na way consiute a rigid determina: cried ac che scale of singular, i turns out to beextzordinary feible. In Desor' case, we could na content outsves with raving, pall beqven his politcal iberalsm, his theological pogresivism, his biological cansormism and hs culual evolutionism. For none ofthese elements are given, postive data they gradually developed unde eiproca influences which depended upon patcular contingencies, whereas, patterns or anceps could temporary pas From one sphere co the other ‘Thus ic only through the subjective perception and che uncertain awateness of the historia actos thatthe ‘ontex can exerts inflaene. Ata constriction, ce conte composed ofl the ‘emenes (intlecual a well as nsticaional which the scientist chooses to make use of within his wider envronmene (Lacour 1994: 148). In rie, coment doesnot ster science, nd docs no citer Jmpose insupenble constsncs on sienifc rescarch. On the contay: drought mltpicy of | its impale and che amor infinievariey oftheir combinations, chi lele once’ canst utes an ineshasible source of inspiration for each scientist = according to his nature, co his eee ‘experiences and his personal inclination. rental, this notion of cone ale oer an cane solution co th tricky problem af dhe epresenaivity ofthe subject ofthe biography. For ie hows thae individ species alone allow fora tealiic reconstruction ofthe social context, Inf, uses and praciee are che ber illurtraton of the varying asics ofthe norm.’ Asuming thatthe sls are parc of the system, i sponte to coneras individual liber with supposedly gil and pre-existing sca eotingencis in reat, both share a dynamic relation1 | arenes acesrons, mari Conclusion (Considesing dh caine uf nls a binge within dhe bra wope of che signs of preknorc auchacology, i appears thatthe heurie orienatons which Desor and his contemporaries followed when they euld the epistemology and the principles of prehistoric archaeology were of an extremely contingent nature. Socal, pola, spiritual, and economic circumstances and concerns specific to hei time, aswel as now long forgotten and often ievalidated debates in her sciences, played a considerable role in the shaping of eur prehistoric archaeology. Thus, many concepts and analytical categories of present-day research ae a legacy ofan outdated and often forgotten past la brie, sme of che frameworks we are still moving in have been shaped for uss Gocal and intllecul) that are no more. All in all, mode prehistory can be considered a8 prisoner of ies own pas. Herelies the stength of he history of archaology. Thanks to the underscoring ofthe forms, the characteris, and che motives of cis constaiing legac, hstoriographic inquiry can help us to freeour discipline from the weight of the past, ro clear atchseology from certain epserologcal sutomatsms and fom hithero obsolete heriicconvencons. Bu this can ony be reached when these historical undertakings efrain from presents, and flow historic apposch Resorting co archival documentation i exential in that respect. And aU Rave rier sho private archives and biography at cerainly most appropriate for such approaches, since dey offer unique insights ino che concrete tales of scence in the making. Eventually che biographer adopting a micrhisoriea method might be in the best pasion inorder to set aside preseneday ‘auegorissand modern preconceptions. Seudyng i fiom che inside, with contemporary words ad concepts, he can grasp the underying, inrnsc logic of past achacslogy ~ and. ensuing, construct ic afterwards, in onder to bring its persistent werknese light. Notes 1. Thisicqute woryng in my vew. A Alin Schnapp pois out gesonlcomrunicion), his lack of concn on he pt of Science sues arly aseme to teil 10am eptnolgi fins of trchasogs Asa mater off, among soli of scence in paris deronstaons ated spon ‘heamlsisfa dpe liga soli core and coherent sete ca har proe very once In his pec, and inorder eo dn the horn teton rch, we baby cup co sts wo important its. Fesly tht our dpine anda he merging fhe cers of ie, the Earth nd of Mar, Beween natal and human scien, aking it th poten sage il of ud, [And secondly that a2 ree of eteme dapendence upon material sources acaesogy may open ie promising prospec or she study of she role fsck tours in he conection of alan ful biog 2 Coye 1997; 295.97 coneass ‘well’ (and instumentlied) hinoriogaphy with “flint sosopeay 3. For the thor and methodological principles which governed sis bigaphy, se Kaser 2003. General peaking, the we of biography inch wring ofthe nor of archaea given ie to mach chorea thought Ia my opisian, Givens 1982, Mary 1999, an Nordbadh 2002, a seing excesivey modes gals othe exci of biography (eso Giberg 198). And die ee senile resoing t the pllomphy and socilgy of science, Bad 1998 lara th Kis inemaism ee also Nordsadh 19983 comment 4. This is nor wo ovelock conemporey scentc publication, whose mportance needs no emontraton In Deore. his wots need last be contonted othr a icles with hom hey inerace, have been anaious to cole Deo xhausive bibgpy Game 10D boa, tices, fins ad published wanaspions of rl conebcons t med ite aos); i hat been of ena impotince olathe construction of varius Bald of eech, nd the anys of ‘har edtral scape (Kaeser 2006 485-532),ocean as sucnontsoRY 119 5. On she conscious and unconscious sacri of private das, andthe val of uch reximonic, so Lane 1975: egading Deo see Ric 2003, 6. Slay i noteworthy that Wagner exer a rong influence on Fich Rants study of che ‘movement of mater cali, which in tum opened the way for his dip Leo Frobenius tnopcogal concep of Kaltes’ ~ ot romenon Kouinnt ter parm, 7. ScLevi 1989, Locign 196 (a tpl to Bours 1986) In thi epce, he appaeypaadonc ‘olf saci ior inthe revival of biography a tobe undeined, Within the kayo ene, the ‘odelogial aces of Shapin & Thackay1974an of einkins 1979 had considerable pat, References Buudou, E1998. “The Problem-Orienaed Scene Biogaphy ae 2 Reach Method’, Nerugian Arcedicl Review 3112: 79-96 [Rely comments {15-18 Blanchet, C1988, "try et “Hintoy” de eal, Rude gc 109: 51-67 ao ne Adi Les pisenation analgesia pre moi du Xe ‘Bee ia A 8) Durem prion mage mane Pas Uarmacan pp 23-4 ‘loin L. 8 N Rika 1999. qua ser Thoie de ens de Thommen . Blane (el, Liz de ene de Comme Tete exe ions, Ps UHarmatan, pp. 10930. Bourdizs, P1986‘ilrionbographigue’ Ac de leche mec il 26, 69-73, Bowler. 1976. Feat and Pre: Polvontloy and he ie of prpeie elton inte wien ‘ny Nes Yor: Science History Picton. i 8er. Thar of Huan Ean Cony of Dear, 1844-1944, Ono: Bas cw, —— 1989. The fsenton of Progr. The Visor andthe Pat Ofer Bas lackel (Chie, R189. Le monde comme représenaio, Annales ESC 6: 1505-20, 19874 Towodcion née Aa und deli, ie ere cries ingunde Ps ‘Albin Nickel. pp 921 "1997 "Thiscie cece connisane ia An bade fle, ieee eine ot ingutde Pis: Albin Michal, pp. 87-107. (Cope N: 1997. La print on ple ate, Métis dee priqu hla, 1830-1950, Fasc [Mamata Dane, G. 1975.4 Hundred ond Fy Yo of Ane. London: Duco, Darwin, Ch 1859. The rgn of Specie by Meme Natl Seon rhe Person of erred Rae in ‘he Sag fr Life London Murray. ‘De Bes: Gk 1950. Combe Vas, Anna of Scene 6 215-29 Dele, 1998, Les gine de I along umsine: ide inept’, Landaa 102 319. Di Bri, HB. 195 1877-89, Fredand,G. 1983. "Evaluionsm and Archaesog in DR. Oloyd & L Langham (el). The Wider Domai of Esionory Thought Docks Reel pp 175-219. Gitte, A. 1998. ‘Biography in the History of Achuslogy, in AC. Ancran & al (eh), The ‘Kaleidacopi Pa. Proved of the Sch Nei TAG Conference, Gabor: Gebog Univesity Pris, pp. 32322. Gina. C1982. The Chee andthe Wr: he Camo of Sienth- Cory ile Harmondsworth eas Books [Origin edition 1976, Givens, DR 1992. "The Ral f Biography in Wasting the History of Arcacloy in J Rey Redivoring er pe: Ey onthe Hits of Arc Acaclg,Avebuy Abate, pp. 3-6, Gry A 138, Obseraons logue sure Jus slew, Mémoi de le Sci Iti de iene sree 163822 1-112 aking TE. L179. "In Defence of Biography: The Use of Biography in the Hisory of Since’ Hitary frie 7: 116, ac, MA, 2002. "On the Ierational Roos of Prhiton Amigty 76 170-7. enim” et "Hircame’ dans Thinorographie de. Stocking, Gre20 | ancevs, aNcEsTORS, mACTICES 2003. "La sence vse Les pote dela iographicen hie des ences, Rene isin Sine Hines 8: 139-0. 2004. Lines deprive Science fo opine dans Unwee ot le vie dEdoard Dew (481-1852, Ps: UHarmacan An, The Fis Enlai of Prehiorc Scenes. The Shortcomings of Autonomy’ in} Cale a. (), Di Anfnge der ar and rbgecikchn Archaea ails Fa (1890-1930) im espns Vrach The Beginning of Academic Pe and Phiri rb is 1 urge Pepe. Rader: M. Led (Beier Archtlogache Foschunge 2), p. 149-60. 25. "Uhise de echt lassres De irrumene dsp} wa hice lin Dilla Case and M. Tisch (o), WESDA Weed Foo and Si Poeding ofthe inerationd Confetti, 13 March 200, Zi Ss Naoal Mascur Chrona, pp 17-24 Laming Empire A196. Origine de aroha prdizrign en Pace Pais: let [nour B 1994, Pea, ancien pile ari Pein 1997. Noon jana moder: Bass anleplge miu. Pass La Déoaune jeune Ph 1975. Le pace umbogrphigue Ps Sel 1G. 1969, Le pus au eae Hire deci dan mont du XVIe tle Pais: Gaim os, Le asge dea iogapie, dads ESC. 6 1325-36. 1992 "On Michio in Burke (a), New Peper om Maral Whig, Ono: Ply re, pp 93-113 Lavi, 8.1996. ‘Le biogphie comme problim’ in J. Revel (ol), Jew Athellr L micenale & Tepe Pat: EHESSGallinad Sel pp 209-3. Malin, and Z. Vas, 1990, Arch Yea and Today The Drolpment of Archies n te “See and Human Carbide Cambege Univesity Pres Macchi 2000 "Review of C Bancksert eal (), his des sciencs de Thome. Teco, ens questions vies, Pais LHaamattan. Rue dire de cece Hamaing 2: 171-76 Murra T1999. “Eplgue the Ar of Aschaclogal Biography’ in T. Murray (ed), Enxlopeic of Arclgy The Great Areal. Oxford'Santa Bats (CA: ABC-Cbo, pp. 862-83, 2002 plop: Why the Hisar of Archeology Maen, Angi 76: 234-38. ‘Nov. 1998, Comment on Badu (1998), Nove Arcel! Review 312: 109-1 A002. How 19 Orzanie One Wihin Hixon: Fab Tam and His Relation o Aig athe End ofthe 18th Century, acigy 76: 141-30, Rey 1996 ‘Mictoanaee coscton doa in J. Reve), Jw elle. La mien Tipe Ptte EHESS Calman Sel 9-15-38. Rickard N. 1992, Le prise on Fame dee sonde mii ds dearest (1859-1909. Unpblad PRD dean, Universe de Patil Patho Sosonne SchlangN. 2002 ‘cea Archive Explorations in she Hiory of Arhaclogy Ania 76 127-3 Shapns Sand A. Thackay. 1974, Prowopogaphy ax + Resch Toon Hisory of Seence: che Beth Scentfe Communiny 1700-190, Mir of Sew 12 1-28. Stocking, GI, 1968 On he ie af reac and Hiss in th Horo of Bevo Sees in RC and Elion, Egy the itary of nraplgy New Yo Fee Pes pp. 1-12 “Tigges B 1989. A lr of Ace Thang Cambridge: Cambie Universi Pes 201, Hissigraphy in T. Mara Ce), Encelpedi of Ares Histor and Dower (sf Santa Baba (CA): ABC, pp. 630-39, ogs 1875 Bine Natcorcheree im Hacer Nod wad Std. 127-40. ‘Wagner M1868. Die Derntriche Thre wnd der Migeiongent der Oren eisg: Danke 8 Hamble able E 195051, Goshiche der pbistorchen Fochung,Anhopor 45: 497-538, 46: 49-112In memory af Karl Atel Moberg Bruce Tigger ~~ Fuucstion and Culeure Culture 2000 Firs published in 2008 by Berghahn Books| swnuberghshnbooks com {© 2008 Nathan Schlanger an Jarl Nowdbladh All ihes reserved Except for dhe quotation of hort passages forthe purpose of criti and review, no pa ofthis book ‘may be repradiced in any form or by any mar, electronic o¢ mechanical, including photocopying, recording, any information storage and teieval sytem naw known of tobe iavented withoue writen permision ofthe publishes. Library of Congress Cataloging n-Pablicaion Daca ACL record for his book is available rom the Library of Congress Beis Library Cataloguing in Publication Data ‘catalogue record fr this book i available fom de Bish Library Printed in the United Srates om acid-fie:paper ISBN 978-1-84545.066-3 psperbaceNATHAN SCHLANGER & JARL NORDBLADH, Eds ARCHIVES ANCESTORS PRACTICES