Tim Murray

Time and archaeology

The concept of time is salient to all human affairs and can be understood in a variety of different ways. This pioneering collection is the first comprehensive survey of time and archaeology. It includes chapters from a broad, international range of contributors, which combine theoretical and empirical material. They illustrate and explore the diversity of archaeological approaches to time.

Cambridge in the bush? Archaeology in Australia and New Guinea

Abstract The history of prehistoric archaeology in Australia is ordered into three stages. The third, 1960–80, is marked by a dominance of Cambridge‐trained people, and a focus at first on acquiring stratigraphie sequences and later on human‐environment relationships. The organisation of archaeology in Australia is described, and the political relationship between archaeologists and Aborigines discussed. Archaeology in New Guinea has concentrated on sequence, as well as problems of agricultural origins and trade, but local participation is beginning only now. We conclude that there is no clearly defined regional tradition in Australian archaeology.

Like WHAT? A practical question of analogical inference and archaeological meaningfulness

Abstract The authors accept A. Wylies view that use in archaeology of analogies is inescapable but that they should be chosen with care. It is suggested that archaeologists do not appreciate how analogies are used in materialistic scientific inquiry, and that abuse of analogies underlies investigations which may be inappropriate and misleading. It is emphasized that in scientific inquiry analogies are incorporated into biconditional propositions which may offer working hypotheses that are potentially refutable within the universe of data they purport to address, but which are not regarded as offering sufficient explanations in the absence of attempts to refute them. It is proposed that this performance criterion be applied to the choice and use of analogies in archaeological inquiry.

Monumentality and the development of the Tongan maritime chiefdom

On Tongatapu the central place of the rising kingdom of Tonga developed in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries AD. Marked out as a monumental area with a rock-cut water-carrying ditch, it soon developed as the site of a sequence of megalithic tombs, in parallel with the documented expansion of the maritime chiefdom. The results of investigations into these structures were achieved with minimum intervention and disturbance on the ground, since the place remains sacred and in use

Archaeology and the threat of the past: Sir Henry Rider Haggard and the acquisition of time

Abstract In this paper I explore some of the impacts of the discovery of high human antiquity, and the successful foundation of a science of prehistoric archaeology during the mid‐ to late nineteenth century. There are good reasons for this exploration of links between science and science fiction. It is widely acknowledged that the discovery of high human antiquity (along with the acceptance of Darwins principle of evolution by natural selection) raised the issue of how an understanding of human social and cultural (as well as physical) evolution could be achieved when the scale of time was so vast. I argue that the threat of an unintelligible human prehistory was met by both scientists and artists, and that their strategies for dealing with it were a joint product. I also argue that these strategies have persisted in archaeology and that they currently hinder us from dealing effectively with contemporary problems arising from a re‐evaluation of the meanings of archaeological time.

(Re) Constructing a Lost Community: “Little Lon,” Melbourne, Australia

The reanalysis of archaeological and documentary evidence of a vanished community (that of Casselden Place in the heart of the area known as “Little Lon” in central Melbourne) has fostered a more thoroughgoing exploration of the nature of the urban slum in Australia. There are significant questions raised by the interpretation of Casselden Place (and Little Lon) as a community during the 19th century (some of the most important of which center on the nature of assemblage composition among poor households of the period). This paper also touches on the means by which new and more complex histories of such vanished communities can be written. As such, the discussion builds on earlier methodological statements and more detailed discussions of the life histories of individuals who lived in Casselden Place (Mayne and Lawrence 1998; Mayne and Murray 1999; Mayne et al. 2000; Murray and Mayne 2002) to provide a more specific discussion of the archaeological elements of the project. The analysis of the assemblage reported here is very much a work in progress. Analysis of assemblages drawn from Casselden Place and those from the rest of Little Lon continues, reaching beyond the level of establishing artifact frequencies and exploring the meaning of the counter-intuitive patterns that are discussed in the paper.

Evaluating evolutionary archaeology

It has often been observed that archaeologists are adept at borrowing theory but not very good about building it. Analyses of the uptake by archaeologists of perspectives from a diversity of sources indicate that such borrowings rarely (if ever) lead to the building of archaeological theory. The return of explicit discussion of evolutionary theory within archaeology affords us the chance to explore whether the traditional pattern of borrowing is being repeated once again, and, if it is, to suggest some strategies which might help us to do better. The core of the paper comprises two case studies to support an argument that evolutionary archaeologists need to integrate the development of evaluation strategies into the process of theory building. These studies focus our attention on the need to reconcile interpretation and inference with the temporality of archaeological records, and provide good examples of how a serious consideration of problems that are revealed by this reconciliation can be a positive force in theory building.

The forced repatriation of cultural properties to Tasmania

A recent court case in Australia changes the established frames under which research archaeologists, parks administrators and Tasmanian Aborigines deal with the prehistoric archaeology of the island.

Melbourne's ‘little Lon'*

How might one tap the idiom of vanished communities, once local knowledge has faded? How might one chart the mental landscapes of locales that have been overlaid by other peoples understandings, and whose material forms have been erased by redevelopment? This paper integrates history and archaeology in order to reclaim the actualities of one city neighbourhood—Melbournes ‘Little Lon—from the distorting realities fashioned by outside perceptions.

Epilogue: why the history of archaeology matters

In recent years the history of archaeology has been enjoying something of a vogue in different research traditions, resulting in a wealth of new studies and publications. In the English-speaking world, our store of biographies and national histories has been considerably expanded by the five-volume Encyclopedia of archaeology (Murray 1999; 2001). The Bulletin of the History of Archaeology has provided a much needed forum for research, and the AREA project — Archives of European Archaeology — has begun to explore a range of resources bearing on the history of archaeology in Europe. At the same time, archaeologists have continued to justify and to advocate the significance of ‘novel’ approaches to archaeology through partial histories of the discipline (the most recent being those associated with the revival of ‘Darwinian archaeologies’ such as Lyman et al. 1997).