Methodological aspects of Iranian archaeology, past and present
This dissertation is the first overview of the history and present state of archaeology in Iran. Its aim is to consider the relevance of recent developments in Western archaeology, and their relevance to a Near Eastern Islamic State. The Palaeolithic of Iran is taken as a case study. The first concern of chapters (1) and (2), in this thesis is to evaluate the distinctively national characteristics of archaeology in Iran. Specifically the chapters consider the development of archaeology in Iran in the 1960s and 1970s in relation to the 'New Archaeology' in the USA. It is clear that these external influences had only a minimal impact on archaeology in Iran; the 'New Archaeology' which first developed in American circles more than thirty years ago, made a somewhat belated impact on Iranian archaeology in the seventies. Not all of its agenda has been adopted, and because it was pioneered by anthropologists on relatively recent and simple New World sites, it is not totally applicable to the long historical sequence of complex Iranian mounds. I argue that Iranian archaeology was simply left behind, ~out of date~ and generally atheoretical. I also stress that its traditional authority structure prevented discussion
Niknami, Kamal Aldin
Methodological aspects of Iranian archaeology, past and present. This dissertation is the first overview of the history and present state of archaeology in Iran. Its aim is to consider the relevance of recent developments in Western archaeology, and their relevance to a Near Eastern Islamic State. The Palaeolithic of Iran is taken as a case study. The first concern of chapters (1) and (2), in this thesis is to evaluate the distinctively national characteristics of archaeology in Iran. Specifically the chapters consider the development of archaeology in Iran in the 1960s and 1970s in relation to the 'New Archaeology' in the USA. It is clear that these external influences had only a minimal impact on archaeology in Iran; the 'New Archaeology' which first developed in American circles more than thirty years ago, made a somewhat belated impact on Iranian archaeology in the seventies. Not all of its agenda has been adopted, and because it was pioneered by anthropologists on relatively recent and simple New World sites, it is not totally applicable to the long historical sequence of complex Iranian mounds. I argue that Iranian archaeology was simply left behind, ~out of date~ and generally atheoretical. I also stress that its traditional authority structure prevented discussion
methodological aspect iranian archaeology past_present first overview history present state archaeology iran aim_consider relevance recent_development western archaeology relevance near_eastern islamic state palaeolithic iran take case_study first_concern evaluate distinctively national characteristic archaeology iran specifically consider development archaeology iran relation new archaeology usa clear external_influence minimal impact archaeology iran new archaeology first developed american circle make somewhat impact iranian archaeology seventy agenda adopt anthropologist relatively_recent simple new_world site totally applicable long historical sequence complex iranian mound argue iranian archaeology simply leave behind out date generally also stress traditional authority structure prevent discussion