Well, one could always use geographic coordinates. As for a classificatory system, you would need to put a name only at the end of the research process, and change it everytime a new finding is rewiring a particular site into the scheme. And then, how would you classify a site with multiple occupation layers? So, maybe, popular names aren't so bad.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Multiple layered sites would be precisely designated as such: Layer L1, L2, etc., with the layer 1 being at the very top, and the numbering increasing as one digs deeper (going back in History). "Popular names" certainly do not describe different layers.

At times, it is best not to rock the boat in which one sits; but I agree, a revamp is in order.

Lou

Science, however, evolves by rocking (and sinking) boats, as other boats show up to salvage sea wrecks from storms, and navigate into safe harbors. Thanks for the response Lou.

Dimitrios

"Evolves", where are you going?

Lou

Removing the name associated with an archaeological site might also remove the accessibility to the non-scientific public and, therefore, their interest regarding increased research. In my opinion, it is our job as social scientists to make our work more accessible rather than less to the general population. However, some rethinking of naming going forward might be in order.

Hi Stephanie,

Greetings from Florida.

Thanks for your reply.

Of course one wishes to make the outcome of scientific work accessible to the public. However, there are dangers that follow this otherwise well-intended effort. Popularizing Science isn't a free good; there are costs associated with the benefits of popularizing; misrepresentation and oversimplification are just two of them. Moreover, when objectives surrounding promotion of tourism or ideology interfere with scientific work, then the dangers become of concern.

Have a nice day.

Dimitrios S. Dendrinos

Hi Lou,

I'm not going anywhere. Science is.

Dimitrios

Super interesting question and great responses. As a Quaker, we don't name anything; days of the week, months etc. It's all by numbers. I get it, but I also miss the mythology and narrative of shared cultural invocation in a name such as a Friday in May.

My point is, by taking all cultural naming away we reduce to functional and co-ordinateable (is that a word?) numbers that anyone can follow, but what do we lose?

There is a strong cultural habit of people in colonialised lands in the USA and Australia stating the First Nation land from which they come. For instance, being from Nebraska, the unceded land of the Omaha and Ponca Tribes. It helps to show cultrual layering and accepts overtly political history, without passing judgement.

I suupose my response is to say there's a conversation to be had here, that invites in many, many disciplines to get a true idea of site and event identity, meaning and interpretation for many different ways of being. The world is full of rich diversity and I'm reluctant to try to reduce this within archaeology as we may be losing a wealth of cultural meaning.

Hi Harriet,

Thanks for participating in this discussion. We all appreciate your input, and your perspective.

Culture-driven nomenclature is enriching of course, up to a point - beyond which culture is overburdening. It is a balanced view which is sought. Albeit that 'balance' might be difficult to identify, being itself derived by some culture.

The term "BC" (Before Christ) has now been modified, to a large extent, in Archeology, for a host of reasons. Numerous designations are assigned to it (like "BP" - 'before present', and various others, more specific, assigned by the carbon-14 dating schemes).

Concern over nomenclature arises when the archeologist deals with an overlay of different cultures and uses. Especially when a modern culture assigns to a site (or monument) a name that was obviously not given to it by its original builders (the point raised in my original comment/question). Singular-culture sites do not have this problem to the extent that multi-layered (or uses) sites do. In the rare case of a singular culture, the time span (when thousands of years are involved) might be of some concern, especially in view of cultural and linguistic (involving nomenclature) evolution.

Again, thanks very much for your valuable input.

Dimitrios

Obrigada pelo aceite e consideração.

I think we should embrace the fact that there are cultural connotations in the names. They are part of the history of the area. So, unless we know the actual ancient name of the place, we may still use the popular name (which may not be the official name). I'd rather have Gobekli Tepe than 8G9W6WFC+7X. But do add coordinates in the papers, for other people to know where to look!

I also agree to many things that have been said above. We should not forget that archaeology is a cultural and social sciences discipline (to a large extend at least). One of our goals is to explain past reality, life and social-behaviour, which would somewhat be obscured if we abstract the sites we deal with. First and foremost, as they are themselves a part of a past, present and future landscape. Removing all cultural baggage from a site disentangles it from its surrounding landscape.

As I have worked on several multi-layered sites myself, the naming of the different layers seems like a good idea (and is commonly done in the way you described it IMO) IF it is possible at all. Several sites cannot be that easily seperated in the field and therefore would require an in-depth analysis before anything is published. Prefereable, but wishful thinking,

Nonetheless, I do fully agree that we must think more about standardisation and comparability in archaeology. For instance, in whatever field you do your research, you come across many terms that are describing one and the same thing. Or, another extreme, you find the morphologically same artefacts but they have different names just because it comes from different periods, countries, or is analysed with different scholarly traditions.

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I would like to expend, if I may, on a few points you made.

Few would disagree that Archeology is a Cultural and Social Science; and that current, past and future views about current, past and future societies their events, structures and artifacts are largely (albeit not exclusively) culturally determined (biased). I would go a step further and argue that it can't be otherwise.

The question is (or hence becomes): doesn't this recognition of cultural bias then necessarily imply the existence of a "British" view to "Stonehenge", when British (or British educated) archeologists name(d) it and analyze(d) it? And, equivalently, a Turkish view to "Gobekli Tepe" by Turkey-related archeologists, analysts etc.? My original question was: can we minimize that bias by devising a uniformly applicable "scientific" nomenclature for monuments and artifacts, fully cognizant that this would only partly address the issue, since fully divorcing ourselves from culture is virtually impossible (as we all seem to agree).

In effect, your point about the same object(s) having different names given to them by different analysts (cultural milieus or scholarly traditions), begs the question: isn't that inevitable under current conditions? Your suggestion for more "standardization" and "comparability" seems to move along the lines suggested about minimizing biases and formalizing archeological research, analysis and naming of structures and artifacts.

In my opinion, in most cases, naming sites has a cultural meaning and is part of the history and identity of a region. Site naming is usually derived from the name of the area or village (ُShahrak-e Firouzeh in iran), or the shape of the site (such as Catal Hoyuk in Turkey). I do not think it is necessary to use a fixed and specific system for naming sites in different geographical areas.

Hi Mohammad,

Thanks for your response; then, to follow up on your position, let me ask you this question:

Are the most qualified of all to do analysis of Persian monuments the Iranians and those closely linked to the Iranian government; the most qualified to do analysis of British Isles monuments are the British and those associated with the British government; the most qualified to do analysis of Turkish monuments are the Turks and those associated with the Turkish government?

Because, obviously, these are the people and governments who are the closest to their respective "culture" and give these monuments the names they currently hold, if I read your argument correctly. The current names given to monuments are what the current cultures find "culturally, politically and socially appropriate" to give them.

Sorry, I think current "cultures" are overburdening these ancient monuments built by cultures that had little to do with the current "cultures" that act as their fiduciaries. That's why I argue for a scientific based nomenclature for monuments to which we have no record of how these ancient cultures that built them named them.

Moreover, I argue that archeological finds from such monuments must be promptly shared with the World's analysts, archeologists, architects and any other interested parties, and not to be made available exclusively to any country's artificially restricted audience of archeologists.

Have a nice day!

The most qualified to do the analysis are the people who have studied and have experience in any scientific field. Iranias are more qualified to study the Persian monuments for the simple reason that they are "there" and have more experience on them. This does not a priori exclude other archaeologists, as it can be documented by the many foreign archaeological schools in Greece and other countries.

As for sharing with the world, it is a pity that many publications do not cross the linguistic barriers. Since english is curently the dominant language, I am eager to see more local research published in english. For example, I am interesting on some issues of archaeology in Iran, but it is almost impossible to even find the books, let alone understand the language.

Hi Themis,

Thanks for your reply. I'm happy that you seem to recognize that archeologists restricting the available information from archeological digs by disseminating it through the local language is not serving the broader community of scholars involved in the analysis of archeological monuments.

Let me take this opportunity to bring up another point/question: are the "most qualified" people to analyze archeological monuments the archeologists involved in the dig? To answer this question, I wish to remark that, by analogy, one may ask: "are the most qualified people to analyze the information gathered by spacecrafts they made to explore the Solar system, the engineers that made them?"

Food for some thought.

Have a nice day!

Not a very good analogy. The engineers that made the spacecraft are not the scientists that designed the experiments which are not the same to the scientists that require specific observations.

Precisely my point; the archeologists that dug out the monument or artifact are not the ones who will determine the makers or the social processes involved; i.e., the Geology, Climatology, Geography, Sociology, Politics, Economics, Demography, Architecture, Engineering, Art, etc., that produced the monument or artifact they dug out.