Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

22 results

Page 1 of 2

Archaeological Thought in America
  • Edited by C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky
  • Published online:
    06 July 2010
    Print publication:
    22 June 1989
  • American archaeology today encompasses a huge range of approaches and draws eclectically on a multitude of academic disciplines. Until now, however, there has been no book seeking to separate the main strands and traditions of research and present a rounded picture of American archaeological thought in all its diversity. The seventeen essays in Archaeological Thought in America describe recent theoretical advances and present substantive interpretations of prehistoric data drawn from a variety of cultures and time-frames, including Mesoamerica, Central Asia, India and China. The contributors include many of the leading North American archaeologists of this generation.

  • 15 - Mesopotamia, Central Asia and the Indus Valley: so the kings were killed

  • Edited by C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky
  • Book:
    Archaeological Thought in America
    Published online:
    06 July 2010
    Print publication:
    22 June 1989, pp 241-267

  • Summary

    … down in the dust lay the ancient majesty of thrones, the haughty sceptres. The illustrious emblem of the sovereign head, dabbled in gore and trampled under the feet of the rabble, mounted its high estate.

    Lucretius

    The earliest civilizations in the three regions of our concern have been termed Sumerian (Mesopotamia), Namazga (Central Asia), and Harappan (Indus Valley). Archaeologists, almost as one, hold firm to the conviction that each of the above civilizations is at least partly the result of an indigenous, autonomous process of development. In each case the distinctive nature of their material remains, their geographical separation, and most particularly the differing cultural traditions so apparent in the material culture that characterized each area prior to the emergence of urban complexity provide substantial support for their indigenous emergence. This is not to say, however, that particular forms of social relations, particularly of a commercial nature, did not provide an integrative force with their adjacent frontiers. The chronological priority of the Sumerian civilization over the Harappan is simply not sufficient for claiming that “it can at least be averred that, however translated, the idea of civilization came to the Indus from the Euphrates and Tigris, and gave the Harappans their initial direction, or at least informed their purpose” (Wheeler 1968b: 135).

  • Introduction

  • Edited by C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky
  • Book:
    Archaeological Thought in America
    Published online:
    06 July 2010
    Print publication:
    22 June 1989, pp 1-16

  • Summary

    This volume of essays is an unanticipated outcome of a formal archaeological exchange program initiated between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. This collaboration is sponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies and the Soviet Academy of Sciences and is administered in the U.S. by the International Research and Exchange Board. To date three symposia have been held: Cambridge (1981), Samarkand (1983), Washington (1986), and a fourth is to be held in Tbilisi (1988). In addition, collaborative excavations at the Bronze Age site of Sarazm, Tadjikistan, S.S.R., have involved the participation of Philip Kohl, of Wellesley College, and myself. A number of years ago Professor Kohl conceived of the idea to edit a volume of essays addressing aspects of method and theory as practiced and written by Soviet archaeologists. That book, being edited by Philip Kohl, contains over twenty essays, and will be published by Cambridge University Press. There is a widely held belief among American archaeologists that Soviet Archaeology conforms to a particular “school,” loosely referred to as Marxist, which implies that all Soviet archaeologists interpret the past according to the evolutionary dictates as set down by Marx and Engels. This is a narrow, ill-informed, perhaps even politically motivated, conception of the real diversity of approaches which characterize Soviet archaeology.

    Structural and methodological differences, however, are readily apparent in the archaeological practice of the U.S.S.R and U.S.A. Some of these may be enumerated.

Page 1 of 2