To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This article concerns itself with how archaeologists and other heritage studies professionals contend with temporal collapse on landscapes that hold African Diasporic histories. Coral stones lay the foundation of colonial architecture on the island of St. Croix in the US Virgin Islands. This article explores how buildings constructed of coral stones during the colonial era are still in use today, either restored or repurposed, along with examples of how coral is being used as an artistic medium in contemporary sculptures that collapse time and demand heritage studies professionals to tend to the persistence of colonial violence in the present. Here, coral—via the structures built out of it—is discussed as a mnemonic device for the biophysical afterlife of slavery. In this article, linear temporal distinctions of past, present, and future are called into question on St. Croix, where colonial structures act as ruptures in conceptualizations of time and serve as palimpsestual reminders of the past in the present.
I want to preface this response by noting that, while I think Bentley, O'Brien and I fundamentally differ in how we approach the archaeological record (2024), I am also convinced that the more perspectives on the past we can cultivate, the richer our interpretative garden will be. Moreover, the more narratives of past worlds we develop, the more nuanced and complex our image of the past will become and, hence, the messier and more human (Frieman in press). I therefore write in the hopes that we can disagree with care, so that all of our scholarship is enriched.
This paper publishes for the first time two apparently unprovenanced Westland cauldrons in the collections of the Society of Antiquaries of London. An argument is made that these vessels are two of the three cauldrons from the lost Halkyn Mountain hoard found c 1760.
Cultural inheritance is a central issue in archaeology. If variation were not inherited, cultures could not evolve. Some archaeologists have dismissed cultural evolutionary theory in general, and the significance of inheritance specifically, substituting instead a view of culture change that results from agency and intentionality amid a range of options in terms of social identity, cultural values and behaviours. This emphasis projects the modern academic imagination onto the past. Much of the archaeological record, however, is consistent with an intergenerational inheritance process in which cultural traditions were the defining characteristics of behaviour.
Between 1899 and 1902, Anglo-French archaeologist George Bonsor carried out an exploration of the Scilly Isles (United Kingdom). At that time the archipelago was believed to be the Cassiterides or Tin Islands mentioned by authors such as Strabo, Pliny the Elder and Ptolemy – an idea first posited by William Camden in his Britannia (1586). Adopting Camden’s theory and guided by ancient literature on the Cassiterides – which refers to the Phoenicians as the first controllers of this trade route – Bonsor sought traces of the Phoenicians and their tin trade in the Scilly Isles, becoming the first person to conduct such research from an archaeological perspective. Not having found any evidence, his exploration remained unpublished and went mostly unnoticed in debates about the Tin Islands over following decades. This paper presents a brief historiographical account on the Cassiterides before and after the explorations, as well as a critical analysis of Bonsor’s field notes regarding his use of ancient sources and his archaeological method. The analysis carried out suggests that Bonsor’s archaeological exploration has been overlooked thus far and that a new assessment of his work is required.