عنوان مقاله [English]
What prompted the author to write this article was the importance of theories application in archaeological fieldworks. Unfortunately, of the mistaken activates of the past works in US and EU, is fully attention to publication of the reports of excavations and surveys, which there is still serious doubt on their accuracy;however, they understood that the reports by themselves would not solve any of the ancient societies problems. During the past two decades and the expansion of the international relationship of the Iranian archaeologists, who inherited the given behavior of their American and European colleagues, with scientific development, especially in archeology, archaeological theories and frameworks of thought that the archaeological world had already experienced during the 60s and 70s, Iranian archaeological community was faced with a large amount of scientific information, methods and theories. It is interesting to state that thiskind of discussions in European and American societies were raised over time via discussions and seminars. Accordingly, it is reasonable to archaeologists who have worked in these countries, to have a better understanding of the idea above presented. The debate is not on the verity or untruth of the theoretical frameworks, but is over the essence of these theorization process. In contrast, in recent years young and aspiring archaeologists found this data two or even three translated sources. Those who had the English language competence referred to relevant articles. In both cases, the sudden confrontation with what young archaeologists they were created confusion. Some were thinking that byintroduction of a thought, the previous idea or mental framework has expired;or as “New Archaeology” or “Processual” has its own special class, they tried to follow up the vanguard activities. As will be explained below, all strategies on the basis of theirquestions and applications are important. Each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses as for “Processual Archaeology”. That is why “Post-Processual Archaeology” emerged, but this is not to ignore the strengths of many aspects of “Processual Archaeology”. Archaeologists should spend much of their time trying to discuss on the basics of archaeology and the most important aim is to increase our understanding of the human past;archaeologists should try to answer the ‘How’ and ‘Why’ questions on past not just ‘What”; therefore, if our goal is to know more about the human past. Traditional approaches tended to regard the objective of archaeology mainly as reconstruction piecing together. The current aim of archaeology is not only simply achieving cultural material and make some assumption of their time being, but also the progressive aim is to reconstruct the subsistence of dead people. We are eager to suggest a clear picture of the subsistence of dead people and their environmental exploitation.And we are following some questions such as the reason of life-styles, behavioral patterns and the way that the lifestyles and cultural material. To sum up, we are trying to explain the changes. There are still some archaeologists with old efficiance procedures while they are aware of the inefficiency of old procedures and have no answer of their irresponsibility. The most outcrop of the “New Archaeology” is making the mixture in between theory and practice. However, there still no contract on the implication of a further objective has been termed the reconstruction of the life ways of the people responsible for the archaeological remains. We are certainly interested in having a clear picture of how people lived, and how they exploited their environment. But we also seek to understand why they lived that way: why they had those patterns of behavior, and how their life ways and material culture came to take the form they did. We are interested, in short, in explaining change.There are still archaeologists who are using old fashions, while they know their methods are useless. They know that their methods are not able to reconstruct the past. They are not responsible for their non-academic behaviors. The most important issue of the New Archaeology is integration of Theory and Method in archaeology; however, there is disagreement over whether many concepts can be considered ‘theoretical’ or whether they are merely neutral techniques or methods outside the purview of theory.
علیزاده ، عباس،1380، تئوری و عمل در باستانشناسی، تهران: سازمان میراث فرهنگی کشور.
- دارک، کن. آر، 1379، مبانی نظری باستانشناسی، ترجمه: کامیار عبدی، تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
- ریترز، جورج، 1373، نظریههای جامعهشناسی، ترجمه: احمدرضا غرویزاد، تهران: انتشارات جهاد دانشگاهی (ماجد).
- فاگان، برایان، 1382، سرآغاز (درآمدی بر باستانشناسی)، ترجمه: غلامعلی شاملو، تهران: سمت.
- خوانساری، محمد، 1387، منطق صوری، تهران: انتشارات آگاه.
- نیکنامی، کمالالدین، 1384، «پردازش مدلهای کمی برای مدلسازی تحلیلهای باستانشناختی»، دو فصلنامه تخصصی پژوهشهای باستانشناسی و مطالعات میانرشتهای، سال اول، شماره یک: صص 14-21.
- Binford, L. S. 1962. Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28: 215-225.
- Clarke, D. L., 1971. Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen & Co LTD.
- Dark, K. R. 1995. Theoretical Archaeology. London: Duckworth.
- Earle, T. K.; Robert W. Preucel; Elizabeth M. Brumfiel; Christopher Carr; W. Frederick Limp; Christopher Chippindale; Antonio Gilman; Ian Hodder; Gregory A. Johnson; William F. Keegan; A. Bernard Knapp; Parker B. Potter; Jr., Nicolas Rolland; Ralph M. Rowlett; Bruce G. Trigger and Robert N. Zeitlin. 1987. Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique. Current Anthropology, Vol. 28, No. 4: 501-538.
- Flannery, Kent. V. 1967. Culture History v. Cultural Process: A debate in American Archaeology. Scientific American. Vol. 217: 119-122).
- Fritz, J. A & F. T. Plog, 1970 The Nature of Archaeological Explanation. American Antiquity. 35. No 4.
- Fuller, D & N. Boivin. 2002. Beyond Description and Diffusion: A History of Processual Theory in the Archaeology of South Asia. In S. Settar and R. Korisettar (eds.) Indian Archaeology in Retrospect IV: Archaeology and Historiography: History, Theory and Method: 159-190. Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research.
- Hodder, I. R. 1972. Locational Models and the Study of Romano-British Settlement. In David. L. Clarke (ed.) Models in Archaeology: 887-909. London: Beccles and Colchester.
- Hodder, Ian. 1986. Reading The Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Hodder, Ian. 1991a. Archaeological Theory in Contemporary European Societies: The Emergence of Competing Traditions. In Ian Hodder (ed.) Archaeological Theory in Europe, The Last 3 Decades: 1-25. London: Routledge.
- Hodder, Ian. 1991b. Postprocessual Archaeology and the Current Debate. In R. W. Preucel (ed.) Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past: 30-42. Illinois: Illinois University Press.
- Hodder, Ian, M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V. Buchli, J. Garman, J. Last & G. Lucas. 1995. Interpreting Archaeology, Finding meaning in the past. London: Routledge.
- Johnson, M., 2002. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. London: Blackwell Publishers.
- Marciniak, A. 1998. Setting a new agenda: Ian Hodder and his contribution to archaeological theory. Archaeology Polona, vol. 35-6: 409-427.
- McNairn, B. 1980. The method and Theory of V.Gordon Childe, Economic, Social and Cultural Interpretations of Prehistory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
- O'Brien, M. J & R. L. Lyman. 2000. Applying Evolutionary Archaeology, A systematic Approach. New York; London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
- Patterson, T. C., 1989. History and the Post-Processual Archaeologies. Man, Vol. 24 (4): 555-566.
- Patterson, T. C.1990. Some Theoretical Tensions within and between the Processual Archaeologies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Vol. 9: 189-200.
- Preucel, R.W. 1991. The Philosophy of Archaeology, In W. Preucel (ed.) Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past: 17-30. Illinois: Illinois 1University Press.
- Preucel, Robert. W. 1995. The Postprocessual Condition. Journal of Archaeological Research. Vol. 3(2): 147-175.
- Renfrew, C. 1987. Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape.
- Renfrew, C. 2001. Symbols before concept: Material engagement and the early development of society. In I. Hodder (ed.) Archaeological Theory Today: 122-148.
- Renfrew, C. & P. Bahn. 2000. Archaeology: Theories Methods and Practice. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd .
- Renfrew, C.& E. Zubrow. 2002. Toward a cognitive archaeology. In C. Renfrew & E. Zubrow (eds.) Ancient Mind: 3-12. Cambridge university press.
- Shanks, M & Ian Hodder. 1995. Processual, Postprocessual and Interpretive Archaeologies. In Ian Hodder, M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V. Buchli, J. Garman, J. Last & G. Lucas (eds.) Interpreting Archaeology, Finding meaning in the past: 3-30. London: Routledge
- Shaw, I. 2002. Processual Archaeology. In I. Shaw & R. Jameson (eds.) A dictionary of Archaeology: 479-481.Blackwell Publishers.
- Trigger, B. G.1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Whitley, D. S. 1998. New Approaches to Old Problems Archaeology in Search of an Ever Elusive Past. In D. S. Whitley (ed.) Reader in Archaeological Theory: Post-Processual and Cognitive Approaches: 1-30. London: TJ International.