Archaeology ��� Object as History ��� Text: Nudging the Special Relationship into the Post-Ironic Author(s): Elena Isayev Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 38, No. 4, Debates in "World Archaeology" (Dec., 2006), pp. 599-610 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40024058 Accessed: 25/10/2010 06:08 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World Archaeology. http://www.jstor.org

Archaeology ^ object as history ^ text: nudging the special relationship into the post-ironic1 Elena Isayev Abstract While interdisciplinarity may be an admirable goal many still doubt its benefits. The paper seeks to articulate the methods used to work across disciplines and considers the obstacles that stand in the way of inter- rather than Aww/ft'-disciplinarity. Sauer's volume is used as a starting point to highlight key concerns in integrating archaeology and ancient history: the assumption that disciplines are determined by evidence type the encouragement of specialisms to be discipline specific the lack of differentiation between Mode One and Mode Two collaborative projects. Briefly tracing the development of the two subjects, suggestions are made as to why history is associated with text and archaeology with object. This is followed by proposals for two key areas of integration beyond concerns of evidence type: the struggle of the two disciplines to deal with accessing the past while being products of the present, and explaining patterns of change. Keywords Interdisciplinarity archaeology history classical archaeology archaeological theory philosophy of history material culture processual post-processual new archaeology literary turn. We have been desensitized. Interdisciplinarity has become a term which, it seems, needs to appear in every project funding application for it to be successful. This pressure to be interdisciplinary, acute in our modern era, is perhaps partly responsible for resistance and doubt about the benefits of such ventures. The aim of this brief textual artefact is to reflect on the relationship between history and archaeology by focusing on the recent volume, edited by Sauer, Archaeology and Ancient History: Breaking Down the Boundaries. This work's subconsciously defeatist outlook will serve to articulate some of the current obstacles that stand in the way of promoting inter- rather than cross- or mwW-disciplinary collaborations. The distinction between these two categories corresponds to the definitions of 'Mode One' and 'Mode Two' collaborative research proposed by Gibbons and adapted RRoutledge World Archaeology Vol. 38(4): 599-610 Debates in World Archaeology Tay.or&FranciscrouP �� 2006 Taylor & Francis ISSN 0043-8243 print/ 1470- 1375 online DOI: 10.1080/00438240601024544