Marcus
Milwright



Defining
Islamic
Archaeology


Some
Preliminary
Notes1
























Islamic
 archaeology
 is
 a
 rapidly
 expanding
 area
 of
 study,
 with
 archaeological
 projects
 now

being
conducted
from
the
Iberian
Peninsula
to
Central
Asia,
in
sub‐Saharan
and
East
Africa,

the
 Indian
 subcontinent,
 and
 Indonesia.2

 The
 term
 ‘archaeology’
 encompasses
 diverse

activities
including
excavation,
field
survey,
building
archaeology,
landscape
archaeology,
the

analysis
of
satellite
and
aerial
photography,
as
well
as
an
array
of
post‐excavation
techniques

ranging
 from
 conventional
 typological
 studies
 to
 the
 scientific
 analysis
 of
 manufactured































































1

This
article
has
been
adapted
from
a
lecture
presented
in
February
2006
at
the
Aga
Khan
Program
in
Harvard

University.
The
author
is
currently
working
on
an
introductory
book
of
Islamic
archaeology
that
will
appear
in
the

New
Edinburgh
Islamic
Surveys
series
published
by
Edinburgh
University
Press.
The
research
for
this
project
has

been
greatly
facilitated
by
fellowships
held
with
the
Aga
Khan
programs
of
MIT
and
Harvard
University.
I
would

like
to
thank
Professors
Nasser
Rabbat
and
Gülru
Neçipoglu
for
their
hospitality
during
the
five
months
I
spent
in

Cambridge
MA
in
2006.

2

For
a
useful
survey
of
current
archaeological
projects
in
different
regions
of
the
Islamic
world,
see
the
“Focus
on

Islam”
series
in
the
four
issues
of
Antiquity
79,
2005.




2

objects,
human
and
animal
bones,
carbonized
seeds
and
pollen
samples.
Not
only
is
Islamic

archaeology
studied
as
a
subject
in
several
institutions,
but
also
courses
in
Islamic
history
and

art
history
regularly
employ
the
results
of
excavations
and
surveys.
It
is
common
for
artifacts

and
buildings
recovered
in
excavations
to

appear
in
survey
texts
on
Islamic
art.
The
growth
of

the
discipline
in
recent
decades
is
remarkable,
but
paradoxical
in
its
demonstrating
that
it
is

easier
 to
 establish
 the
 range
 of
 activities
 involved
 in
 the
 contemporary
 practice
 of
 Islamic

archaeology
 than
 to
 formulate
 the
 theoretical
 foundations
 underpinning
 the
 archaeological

analysis
of
the
Islamic
past.
In
this
short
article
I
offer
some
preliminary
observations
on
this

problem.
I
also
provide
a
sketch
of
the
historiography
of
Islamic
archaeology
whereby
I
analyze

the
role
of
Islam
as
a
structuring
principle
in
the
patterning
of
material
culture
and
the
extent

to
which
it
figures
into
contemporary
archaeological
practice.
The
final
section
of
the
paper

addresses
the
relationship
between
interpretations
of
the
Islamic
past
offered
by
archaeology

and
those
of
other
historically‐based
disciplines.



Interest
 in
 the
 excavated
 remains
 of
 earlier
 historical
 periods
 in
 the
 Middle
 East

predates
the
birth
of
modern
archaeology.
For
example,
in
his
chronicle,
the
Kitab
al‐Suluk,
the

fifteenth‐century
Egyptian
scholar,
Ahmad
ibn
‘Ali
al‐Maqrizi
(d.
1442)
describes
an
intriguing

archaeological
episode.
Recounting
the
events
of
the
year
1342,
he
writes
that
a
resident
of

Cairo
had
unearthed
what
he
claimed
to
be
an
ancient
mosque
near
a
heap
of
refuse
in
the

vicinity
of
Bab
al‐Luq.
As
news
of
the
discovery
spread,
a
man
of
ill‐repute
(ba‘d
shayatin
al‐
‘amma)
by
the
name
of
Shu‘ayb
claimed
to
have
received
a
vision
in
his
sleep
which
revealed
to

him
that
the
site
was
the
burial
place
(qabr)
of
a
companion
of
the
Prophet
Muhammad.
Sure

enough,
following
the
excavation
of
the
area
by
the
people,
a
“shrine”
came
to
light
and
this

new
 attraction
 became
 the
 locus
 of
 popular
 pilgrimage
 and
 nightly
 celebrations.
 Al‐Maqrizi

tells
us
that,
for
a
fee,
the
enterprising
Shu‘ayb
offered
guided
tours
to
wealthy
visitors
that

included
 the
 wives
 of
 prominent
 dignitaries
 in
 the
 city.
 When
 the
 prefect
 of
 the
 city

investigated
the
site
he
found
Shu‘ayb
had
disappeared
with
all
the
money
he
had
collected.


3

The
“shrine”
itself
was
found,
of
course,
to
be
a
fabrication.3




 This
event
is
discussed
by
Boaz
Shoshan
in
his
book,
Popular
Culture
in
Medieval
Cairo
in

relation
to
the
growth
of
popular
Sufi
practices
in
Cairo
during
the
Mamluk
period
(1250‐1517);

but
 al‐Maqrizi’s
 account
 may
 also
 be
 read
 in
 another
 light.
 What
 he
 describes
 is
 an

archaeological
 process
 by
 which
 material
 remains
 –
 in
 this
 case
 discovered
 as
 the
 result
 of

excavation
–
are
employed
in
the
reconstruction
of
the
Islamic
past.
While
al‐Maqrizi
relates

the
story
partly
to
reveal
the
credulity
of
those
who
were
taken
in
by
the
fraud
and
the
use
of

dream
 imagery
 as
 cause
 to
 excavate
 is
 hardly
 likely
 to
 become
 a
 major
 tool
 of
 current

archaeological
analysis,
comparisons
with
the
modern
practice
and
reception
of
archaeology

are
not
as
far‐fetched
as
they
might
first
appear.
Here
we
have
the
case
of
a
chance
discovery

of
 architectural
 elements
 leading
 to
 the
 formation
 of
 a
 working
 hypothesis
 that
 is
 tested

through
 digging.
 The
 provision
 of
 tours
 around
 an
 archaeological
 site
 is
 a
 regular
 duty
 on

modern
 excavations
 and,
 as
 in
 al‐Maqrizi’s
 example,
 major
 archaeological
 discoveries
 often

become
the
focus
of
extensive
media
attention,
even
outpourings
of
religious
or
nationalist

sentiment.
The
wider
interpretation
of
archaeological
remains
is
not
under
the
sole
control
of

those
who
unearth
them;
one
might
look
to
the
attempts
of
modern
Druids
to
appropriate

“Sea
Henge,”
the
pre‐historic
wooden
structure
discovered
on
the
coast
of
Norfolk
in
the
east

of
England,
or
the
serious
revision
of
historical
events
that
accompanies
the
creation
of
what

Neil
Asher
Silberman
calls
archaeological
“theme
parks”
at
sites
like
Masada
in
Israel.4




 Al‐Maqrizi
 was
 profoundly
 interested
 in
 the
 past
 events
 and
 cultures
 of
 the
 Islamic

world.
His
Kitab
al‐Mawa‘iz
wa’l‐I‘tibar
bi‐dhikr
al‐khitat
wa’l‐athar
(Exhortations
and
Reflections

on
the
History
of
Urban
Quarters
and
Monuments)
is
remarkable
for
its
interest
in
archaeological































































3

Ahmad
ibn
‘Ali
al‐Maqrizi,
Kitab
al‐Suluk
li‐ma‘rifat
duwal
al‐muluk,
eds.,
M.
Ziada
and
S.
Ashour
(Cairo:
1934‐72):

II.2:
249‐50.
See
also
Boaz
Shoshan,
Popular
Culture
in
Medieval
Cairo,
Cambridge
Studies
in
Islamic
Civilization

(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
1993):
9.


4

For
contrasting
perspectives
on
“Sea
Henge”,
see
www.english‐heritage.org.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.3870

and
www.warband.org/seahenge.html

For
ancient
sites
in
Israel,
see
Neil
Asher
Silberman,
“Structuring
the
past:
Israelis,
Palestinians,
and
the
symbolic

authority
of
archaeological
monuments,”
in
N.
Silberman
and
D.
Small,
eds.,
The
Archaeology
of
Israel;

Constructing
the
Past,
Interpreting
the
Present,
Journal
for
the
Study
of
the
Old
Testament
Supplement
Series
237

(Sheffield:
Sheffield
University
Press,
1997):
62‐81.





4

issues
such
as
phases
of
building
construction,
the
role
of
architecture
in
the
formation
of
the

urban
environment,
and
the
location
of
areas
of
economic
activity
within
the
cities
of
Cairo
and

Fustat.5

One
can
also
find
examples
of
other
forms
of
engagement
with
the
physical
remains
of

past
cultures.
For
instance,
the
tenth‐century
author,
Hasan
ibn
Ahmad
al‐Hamdani’s
record
of

the
pre‐Islamic
antiquities
of
southern
Arabia,
the
Kitab
al‐Iklil
contains
numerous
descriptions

of
ancient
castles,
palaces,
dams
and
aqueducts,
as
well
as
vivid
reconstructions
of
the
opening

of
Himyarite
tombs.6

Clearly
al‐Hamdani’s
accounts
are
not
to
be
read
in
an
uncritical
fashion
–

the
didactic
function
of
the
text
should
be
weighed
against
its
role
as
entertainment
and
we

have
no
way
of
knowing
how
many
of
the
“excavations”
he
describes
actually
occurred
–
but

his
 interpretations
 of
 unfamiliar
 texts
 and
 objects
 are
 perhaps
 not
 so
 different
 from
 the

enthusiastic
 speculations
 of
 eighteenth‐century
 antiquarians
 in
 Britain
 and
 continental

Europe.7




 My
 reason
 for
 citing
 these
 examples
 is
 twofold.
 First,
 and
 of
 less
 significance,
 is
 to

emphasize
the
ambiguity
in
the
term
‘Islamic
archaeology.’
Just
like
signifiers
used
for
other

areas
of
specialism
–
such
as
Medieval
or
Roman
archaeology
–
there
seems
to
be
nothing

intrinsically
 “Islamic”
 in
 the
 current
 practice
 of
 Islamic
 archaeology.
 Nonetheless
 there
 are

scholars,
most
prominently
Timothy
Insoll,
who
argue
that
Islamic
archaeology
needs
to
be

constituted
as
a
study
of
Islam,
in
the
sense
that
the
religion
provides
an
underlying
structure

to
human
behavior
that
may
be
detected
in
all
aspects
of
the
archaeological
record
–
from
the

explicitly
sacred
(physical
spaces
or
objects
associated
with
the
practice
of
the
faith)
to
what
is































































5

For
a
discussion
of
Maqrizi’s
aims
and
method
in
the
composition
of
al‐Khitat,
see
Nasser
Rabbat,
“Al‐Maqrizi’s

Khitat,
an
Egyptian
lieu
de
mémoire,”
and
Sabri
Jarrar,
“Al‐Maqrizi’s
reinvention
of
Egyptian
historiography

through
architectural
history,”
both
in
Doris
Behrens‐Abouseif,
ed.,
The
Cairo
Heritage:
Essays
in
Honor
of
Laila
Ali

Ibrahim
(Cairo
and
New
York:
American
University
in
Cairo
Press,
2000):
17‐30,
31‐53.

6

Hamdani,
Hasan
ibn
Ahmad,
Kitab
al‐iklil,
vol.8,
ed.
A.
al‐Karmali
(Baghdad:
Dar
al‐Salam,
1931).
Translated
by

Nabih
Amin
Faris
as:
The
Antiquities
of
South
Arabia,
Princeton
Oriental
Texts
3
(Princeton
NJ
and
Oxford:

Princeton
University
Press,
1938).

7

For
example,
William
Stukeley,
Itinerarium
curiosum:
Or,
an
Account
of
the
Antiquities,
and
remarkable
Curiosities

in
Nature
or
Art,
observed
in
Travels
through
Great
Britain,
2
vols.
(1724,
reprinted;
Farnborough:
Gregg,
1969).
For

an
appreciation
of
eighteenth‐century
archaeological
literature,
see
Ian
Hodder,
“Writing
archaeology:
Site

reports
in
context,”
Antiquity
63,
1989:
268‐74.


5

conventionally
termed
the
secular
realm
(domestic
occupation,
economic
activity,
diet,
and
so

on).8

While
Insoll’s
position
seems
unduly
deterministic
in
its
assertion
that
one
can
define
the

practice
 of
 Islam
 as
 a
 set
 of
 variables
 against
 which
 the
 patterning
 of
 artifacts
 or
 other

archaeological
data
can
be
measured,
it
is
certainly
worth
asking
whether
it
is
necessary
to
find

methodologies
for
the
interpretation
of
Islamic
material
culture
that
are
distinct
from
those
of

other
periods
or
geographical
areas.


The
 second
 point
 is
 of
 greater
 importance
 in
 the
 present
 context.
 Simply,
 what

distinguishes
 the
 activities
 of
 modern
 archaeologists
 from
 other
 types
 of
 intellectual

engagement
with
the
material
remains
of
the
Islamic
past?
Thinking
about
this
question
in
a

historical
sense,
it
is
necessary
to
find
ways
to
differentiate
between
modern
archaeological

practice
 and
 that
 of
 al‐Maqrizi
 or
 al‐Hamdani.
 Furthermore,
 how
 does
 modern
 archaeology

differ
 from
 the
 activities
 of
 nineteenth‐century
 Orientalists
 like
 Daniel
 Fouquet
 or
 Stanley

Lane‐Poole
at
Fustat,
or
even
early
excavations
of
Islamic
sites
–
Samarqand
(1885),
the
Qal‘a

of
the
Beni
Hammad
in
Algeria
(1898‐1909),
Raqqa
(1905‐06
and
1908),
and
Cordoba
(1910).9


Clearly,
it
is
impossible
to
isolate
a
moment
when
such
a
transition
occurred
and
something

that
can
be
identified
as
“Islamic
archaeology”
was
born,
though
one
can
point
to
significant

events
 such
 as
 the
 first
 identification
 of
 Islamic
 occupation
 layers
 through
 stratigraphic

excavation
 on
 a
 multi‐period
 site
 at
 Tal
 al‐Safiyya
 by
 Frederick
 Bliss
 and
 Robert
 MacAlister

between
 1899
 and
 1902,
 or
 the
 hugely
 influential
 publications
 by
 Friedrich
 Sarre
 and
 Ernst

Herzfeld
of
the
1910‐1913
excavation
seasons
at
Samarra.10

































































8

Timothy
Insoll,
The
Archaeology
of
Islam
(Oxford
and
Malden
Mass.:
Blackwell
Publishers,
1999).
He
has
also

developed
these
ideas
in
other
publications
including:
T.
Insoll,
ed.,
Archaeology
and
World
Religion
(London
and

New
York:
Routledge,
2001);
idem,
Archaeology,
Ritual,
Religion,
Themes
in
Archaeology
(London
and
New
York:

Routledge,
2004).


9

Daniel
Fouquet,
Contribution
à
l’étude
de
la
céramique
orientale,
Extraits
des
mémoires
de
l’Institut
Égyptien

(Cairo:
Institut
Égyptien,
1900);
Stanley
Lane‐Poole,
The
Art
of
the
Saracens
in
Egypt
(London:
Chapman
and
Hall,

1886).
Bibliography
for
these
early
excavations
can
be
found
in
J.
Michael
Rogers,
From
Antiquarianism
to
Islamic

Archaeology,
Quaderni
dell’
Istituto
Italiano
di
Cultura
per
la
R.A.E.
Nuova
serie
2
(Cairo,
1974):
1‐65;
Stephen

Vernoit,
“The
rise
of
Islamic
archaeology,”
Muqarnas
14,
1997:
1‐10.
For
the
Ottoman
excavations
at
Raqqa
see

now
Marilyn
Jenkins‐Madina,
Raqqa
revisited:
Ceramics
of
Ayyubid
Syria
(New
Haven
and
London:
Metropolitan

Museum
of
Art
and
Yale
University
Press,
2006):
22‐26,
192‐93.

10

Frederick
Bliss
and
Robert
MacAlister,
Excavations
in
Palestine
during
the
Years
1898‐1900
(London:
Palestine

Exploration
Fund,
1902).
For
the
Samarra
excavations,
see
Alastair
Northedge,
“Ernst
Herzfeld,
Samarra,
and


6

A
number
of
scholars
–
including
Richard
Ettinghausen,
Oleg
Grabar,
Michael
Rogers

and
 Stephen
 Vernoit
 –
 have
 addressed
 the
 evolution
 of
 Islamic
 archaeology
 from
 its

antiquarian
roots
through
to
the
present,
and
while
I
do
not
want
retrace
the
same
ground

here,
 it
 is
 worth
 making
 two
 general
 observations
 about
 these
 surveys.11

 First,
 the
 authors

approach
 archaeology
 primarily
 as
 a
 means
 to
 explicate
 what
 may
 be
 characterized
 as
 art‐
historical
 issues
 concerning
 the
 historical
 context
 and
 stylistic
 evolution
 of
 architecture
 and

portable
 artifacts.
 Little
 consideration
 is
 given
 to
 the
 wider
 roles
 of
 archaeology
 in
 the

interpretation
 of
 questions
 such
 as
 settlement
 patterns,
 agricultural
 practices,
 industrial

activity,
and
so
on.
Second,
with
the
exception
of
Grabar,
the
authors
make
no
attempt
to

define
what
archaeology
or
an
archaeological
approach
might
actually
be.
Aside
from
casual

references
 to
 the
 business
 of
 digging,
 there
 appears
 to
 be
 an
 assumption
 that
 archaeology

simply
comprises
modes
of
collecting
and
classifying
data
–
the
interpretation
of
this
evidence

(iconography,
 aesthetic
 qualities,
 historical
 significance)
 being
 left
 to
 others.
 Without
 this

implicit
judgment,
it
is
difficult
to
see
what
it
is
that
might
hold
together
such
diverse
scholarly

enterprises
 as
 Max
 van
 Berchem’s
 meticulous
 collection
 of
 monumental
 inscriptions,
 an

architectural
study
by
André
Godard,
and
an
eighteenth‐century
monograph
on
Islamic
coin

hoards
in
Scandinavia
under
the
general
heading
of
“archaeology.”


 Grabar
 rightly
 separates
 the
 technical
 aspects
 of
 archaeology
 –
 procedures
 for
 the

retrieval
and
ordering
of
artifacts
or
other
forms
of
data
–
from
the
more
abstract,
interpretive

dimensions
of
the
discipline.
He
proposes
a
general
definition
of
the
archaeological
enterprise

as
“an
attempt
to
provide
a
complete
description
of
the
material
culture
of
a
time
or
place”

before
 suggesting
 some
 broad
 distinctions
 in
 terms
 of
 goals
 and
 methodology.
 Grabar’s

comments
 were
 written
 in
 1976
 and,
 predictably,
 theorists
 have
 moved
 the
 nature
 of

archaeological
 interpretation
 in
 different
 directions
 away
 from
 the
 “ideal”
 of
 an
 apparently































































Islamic
archaeology,”
in
A.
Gunter
and
S.
Hauser,
eds.,
Ernst
Herzfeld
and
the
Development
of
Near
Eastern

Studies,
1900‐1950
(Leiden
and
Boston:
Brill,
2005):
383‐403.


11

Richard
Ettinghausen,
“Islamic
art
and
archaeology,”
in
T.
C.
Young,
ed.,
Near
Eastern
Culture
and
Society

(Princeton
NJ:
Princeton
University
Press,
1951):
17‐47;
Oleg
Grabar,
“Islamic
art
and
archaeology,”
in
L.
Binder,

ed.,
The
Study
of
the
Middle
East:
Research
and
Scholarship
in
the
Humanities
and
Social
Sciences
(New
York:
Wiley,

1976):
229‐63;
Rogers
(1974);
Vernoit
(1997).


7

objective
“complete
description”
of
past
time
periods.12

It
is
also
notable
that
Grabar’s
focus
is

on
 the
 material
 culture
 itself,
 rather
 than
 how
 the
 spatial
 and
 chronological
 patterning
 of

archaeological
artifacts
may
be
employed
to
look
at
questions
of
social
stratification,
cultural

and
 economic
 interaction,
 the
 performance
 of
 ritual,
 or
 the
 negotiation
 of
 group
 identity.

Allowing
for
these
reservations,
one
can
agree
that
it
is
at
the
level
of
interpretation
and
not

technique
that
Islamic
archaeology
as
a
historical
discipline
should
be
defined.
This
leads
to
the

question
 of
 what
 distinguishes
 the
 understanding
 of
 the
 past
 formulated
 by
 archaeologists

from
that
reconstructed
by
textual
historians.


It
 is
 important
 to
 set
 realistic
 boundaries
 concerning
 what
 Islamic
 archaeology
 can

potentially
show
us
about
past
events
and
patterns
of
human
behavior,
but
at
the
same
time

this
process
of
definition
should
not
be
dictated
by
the
requirements
of
other
disciplines.
The

medieval
 archaeologist
 Timothy
 Champion
 has
 coined
 the
 phrase,
 “the
 tyranny
 of
 the

historical
 record”
 to
 refer
 to
 the
 ways
 textual
 history
 has
 created
 an
 overarching
 narrative

which
 has
 constricted
 the
 scope
 of
 archaeological
 research
 through
 the
 establishment
 of

procession
of
significant
events
–
changes
of
dynasty,
wars,
and
so
on
–
that
may
have
little

correlation
 with
 the
 excavated
 record.13

 Historians
 may
 come
 to
 excavation
 reports
 with

expectations
that
are
unlikely
to
be
satisfied
by
the
data
presented
in
them.
In
his
recent
book,

Islamic
Historiography,
Chase
Robinson
mentions
the
discovery
and
excavation
of
the
dwellings

of
 the
 Abbasid
 family
 at
 the
 southern
 Jordanian
 site
 of
 Humayma
 conducted
 by
 Rebecca

Foote,
John
Olesen
and
others.
Dating
to
the
first
half
of
the
eighth
century,
the
archaeological

remains
illuminate
a
critical
phase
in
the
decades
prior
to
the
demise
of
the
Umayyad
caliphate

and
the
rise
of
the
Abbasids.
Robinson
observes
that,
for
all
its
intrinsic
archaeological
interest,

the
excavation
of
Humayma
is
unlikely
to
provide
us
with
new
information
about
the
political































































12

There
is
a
vast
literature
on
archaeological
theory.
For
a
useful
survey
of
the
main
branches,
see
the
essays
in

Ian
Hodder
et
al.,
eds.,
Interpreting
Archaeology:
Finding
Meaning
in
the
Past
(London
and
New
York:
Routledge,

1995).


13

Timothy
Champion,
“Medieval
archaeology
and
the
tyranny
of
the
historical
record,”
in
D.
Austin
and
L.
Alcock,

eds.,
From
the
Baltic
to
the
Black
Sea:
Studies
in
Medieval
Archaeology
(London:
Unwin
Hyman,
1990):
79‐95.


8

events
leading
up
to
Abbasid
revolution.14


It
is
difficult
to
disagree
with
this
statement
to
the
extent
that
archaeology
is
not
an

indicator
of
individual
thought
processes
or
complex
human
actions
that
occur
over
a
short

time
span,
but
one
might
criticize
Robinson
for
asking
the
wrong
questions
of
the
available

evidence.

For
instance,
an
archaeological
interpretation
could
take
into
account
the
location

of
 Humayma
 in
 relation
 to
 ancient
 Via
 Nova
 Traiana,
 and
 how
 this
 main
 route
 might
 have

facilitated
communication
between
the
Abbasid
family
and
their
supporters
in
other
regions.15


Taking
this
further,
the
economic
dimension
of
the
eastward
shift
of
the
center
of
power
under

the
Abbasids
can
be
investigated
through
the
study
of
land
exploitation
in
Iraq
from
the
late

Sasanian
period
onward.
Archaeology
can
place
into
its
proper
perspective
the
role
of
caliphal

fiat
in
the
creation
of
new
cities
such
as
Baghdad
and
Samarra
by
directing
attention
to
the

roles
 played
 by
 the
 provision
 of
 labor
 and
 resources
 from
 the
 agricultural
 hinterlands.
 A

seminal
 study
 in
 this
 regard
 is
 the
 Land
 Behind
 Baghdad
 by
 Robert
 Adams.16

 Looking
 in

another
direction,
recent
archaeological
work
at
Raqqa
in
northeast
Syria
has
focused
upon
the

development
 of
 the
 industrial
 district
 that
 supported
 the
 construction
 and
 subsequent

occupation
of
the
Abbasid
city
of
Rafiqa
in
the
last
quarter
of
the
eighth
century.17


Another
 area
 where
 there
 appears
 to
 be
 a
 disjuncture
 between
 archaeology
 and

conventional
 textual
 history
 is
 in
 the
 perception
 of
 the
 passage
 of
 time.
 As
 already
 noted,

archaeology
is
generally
not
well
suited
to
the
interpretation
of
single
events
as
they
appear
in































































14

Chase
Robinson,
Islamic
Historiography,
Themes
in
Islamic
History
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,

2003):
53.
For
finds
from
the
Abbasid
complex
at
Humayma,
see
Rebecca
Foote,
“Frescoes
and
carved
ivory
from

the
Abbasid
family
homestead
at
Humeima,”
Journal
of
the
Roman
Archaeology
12.1,
1999:
423‐28.

15

David
Graf,
“The
Via
Nova
Traiana
in
Arabia
Petraea,”
in
John
Humphrey,
ed.,
The
Roman
and
Byzantine
Near

East;
Some
recent
archaeological
Research,
Journal
of
Roman
Archaeology.
Supplementary
Series
14
(Ann
Arbor

Mich.,
1995):
241‐68.


16

Robert
Adams,
Land
behind
Baghdad:
A
History
of
Settlement
on
the
Diyala
Plain
(Chicago
and
London:

University
of
Chicago
Press,
1965).
For
a
critique
of
Adams’
methods
and
conclusions,
see
Michael
Morony,
“Land

use
and
settlement
patterns
in
Late
Sasanian
and
Early
Islamic
Iraq,”
in
G.
King
and
A.
Cameron,
eds.,
The

Byzantine
and
Early
Islamic
Near
East
II:
Land
Use
and
Settlement
Patterns,
Studies
in
Late
Antiquity
and
Early

Islam
I
(Princeton
NJ:
Darwin
Press,
1994):
221‐29.

17

For
a
recent
survey
of
excavations
of
this
industrial
region,
see
Julian
Henderson
et
al.,
“Experiment
and

innovation:
Early
Islamic
industry
at
al‐Raqqa,
Syria,”
Antiquity
79,
2005:
130‐45.


9

annalistic
chronicles,
but
a
more
profound
distinction
can
also
be
made.
The
archaeologist
and

theorist
 Louis
 Binford
 noted
 that,
 with
 the
 exception
 of
 cataclysmic
 events
 such
 as

earthquakes
or
the
destruction
of
Pompeii,
archaeology
does
not
record
practices
of
human

deposition
over
the
short‐term.
He
astutely
observes
that
the
archaeological
time
periods
that

might
be
identified
in
the
stratigraphic
excavation
of
a
building
bear
no
direct
relation
to
time

as
 it
 was
 experienced
 by
 those
 who
 deposited
 the
 material
 in
 the
 first
 place.18

 Taking
 this

further,
 archaeological
 studies
 of
 changing
 settlement
 patterns
 often
 deal
 in
 chronological

phases
that
exist
beyond
the
domains
of
both
lived
experience
and
contemporary
historical
or

geographical
 writing.
 Given
 this
 elasticity
 of
 archaeological
 time,
 it
 is
 hardly
 surprising
 that

archaeologists
have
been
drawn
to
the
reframing
of
historical
process
in
the
writings
of
the

Annales
 school,
 most
 influentially
 Ferdinand
 Braudel
 though
 one
 might
 also
 point
 to
 the

studies
of
long‐term
trading
patterns
in
the
Medieval
Mediterranean
by
Maurice
Lombard.19


The
concept
of
the
longue
durée
has
already
been
employed
in
Islamic
archaeology.20


This
ongoing
dialogue
with
textual
history
is
occurring
in
other
fields
of
archaeological

research,
 and
 in
 recent
 decades
 the
 term
 ‘Historical
 Archaeology’
 has
 gained
 wider
 usage.

Given
the
abundance
of
written
sources
available
through
most
phases
of
Islamic
history,
it

might
 seem
 rather
 obvious
 that
 Islamic
 archaeology
 would
 be
 classified
 as
 a
 branch
 of

Historical
Archaeology.
In
fact,
there
has
been
much
disagreement
among
archaeologists
as
to

how
this
term
may
be
deployed,
with
many
of
those
in
North
America
adopting
a
narrower































































18

Louis
Binford,
“Behavioral
archaeology
and
the
‘Pompeii
premise,’”
Journal
of
Anthropological
Research
37,
1981:

195‐208.
See
also
discussion
of
these
ideas
in
Michael
Smith,
“Braudel’s
temporal
rhythms
and
chronology
theory

in
archaeology,”
in
A.
Bernard
Knapp,
ed.,
Archaeology,
Annales,
and
Ethnohistory,
New
Directions
in
Archaeology

(Cambridge
and
New
York:
Cambridge
University
Press,
1992):
23‐34
(see
especially
26‐27).
For
the

conceptualization
of
long‐term
structures
in
archaeology,
see
also
Ian
Hodder,
ed.,
Archaeology
as
Long‐Term

History,
New
Directions
in
Archaeology
(Cambridge
and
New
York:
Cambridge
University
Press,
1987).

19

For
an
archaeological
perspective
on
Lombard
(and
bibliography),
see
Andrew
Sherratt,
“What
can

archaeologists
learn
from
the
Annalistes?”
in
Knapp
(1992):
135‐42
(see
138).

20

For
example,
Jeremy
Johns,
“The
Longue
Durée:
state
and
settlement
strategies
in
southern
Transjordan
across

the
Islamic
centuries,”

in
Eugene
Rogan
and
Tariq
Tell,
eds.,
Village,
Steppe
and
State.
The
Social
Origins
of

Modern
Jordan
(London
and
New
York:
British
Academic
Press,
1995):
1‐31;
Insoll
(1999).


10

interpretation
that
focuses
solely
upon
developments
after
1492.21

It
is
telling
that
the
recent

Encyclopedia
of
Historical
Archaeology
contains
one
entry
devoted
specifically
to
the
Islamic

period,
that
of
Ottoman
Empire.22

Drawing
upon
world
systems
theory,
Historical
Archaeology

thus
 becomes
 the
 study
 of
 material
 culture
 during
 the
 era
 of
 the
 spread
 of
 capitalism
 and

European
colonial
expansion.
Counterarguments
have
criticized
the
excessively
Euro‐centric

nature
 of
 this
 model.
 It
 may
 also
 be
 noted
 that,
 as
 Janet
 Abu
 Lughod
 has
 demonstrated,

complex
international
trading
systems
certainly
operated
prior
to
the
Early
Modern
period.23


Leaving
 these
 disputes
 aside,
 the
 principal
 value
 of
 having
 a
 category
 of
 Historical

Archaeology
 is
 that
 it
 places
 in
 the
 foreground
 the
 need
 to
 develop
 and
 articulate

methodologies
concerning
the
integration
of
archaeological
and
textual
data.24

Some
studies

have
looked
at
the
ways
in
which
researchers
can
evaluate
the
modes
of
transmission
for
both

texts
and
artifacts
in
order
to
establish
their
relative
independence
as
sources
for
study
of
the

past.
The
production
of
texts
and
of
branches
of
knowledge
can
themselves
become
an
aspect

of
 archaeological
 analysis.
 In
 addition,
 Historical
 Archaeology
 requires
 the
 researcher
 to

establish
 those
 areas
 of
 inquiry
 into
 the
 past
 where
 archaeology
 can
 make
 a
 distinct

contribution.
For
instance,
with
the
growth
of
historical
studies
of
non‐elite
groups,
it
is
no

longer
sufficient
to
claim
that
archaeology
is
the
only
means
to
recreate
the
lives
of
the
urban

poor
 or
 the
 inhabitants
 of
 rural
 areas.
 Thus,
 the
 archaeologist
 needs
 to
 make
 clear
 what

research
problems
an
excavation
or
survey
hopes
to
address.
































































21

For
an
evaluation
of
recent
trends
in
Historical
Archaeology,
see
Matthew
Johnson,
“Rethinking
Historical

Archaeology,”
in
P.
Funari,
M.
Hall
and
S.
Jones,
eds.,
Historical
Archaeology:
Back
from
the
Edge,
One
World

Archaeology
(London
and
New
York:
Routledge,
1999):
23‐36.
For
perspectives
on
Ottoman
Archaeology,
see
Uzi

Baram
and
Lynda
Carroll,
eds.,
A
Historical
Archaeology
of
the
Ottoman
Empire:
Breaking
new
Ground.

Contributions
to
Global
Historical
Archaeology
(New
York
and
Boston:
Kluwer
Academic/Plenum
Publishers,

2000).

22

Lynda
Carroll,
“Ottoman
empire,”
in
Charles
Orser,
ed.,
Encyclopedia
of
Historical
Archaeology
(London
and
New

York:
Routledge,
2002):
406‐407.

23

Janet
Abu
Lughod,
Before
European
Hegemony:
The
World
System
A.D.
1250‐1350
(New
York
and
Oxford:

Oxford
University
Press,
1989).

24

For
instance,
see
contributions
in
David
Small,
ed.,
Methods
in
the
Mediterranean:
Historical
and
Archaeological

Views
on
Texts
and
Archaeology,
Bibliotheca
Classica
Batava
(Leiden
and
New
York:
Brill,
1995).


11

A
common
complaint
in
earlier
surveys
of
Islamic
archaeology
was
that
the
paucity
of

published
excavations
made
it
difficult
to
move
from
the
particulars
of
a
given
site
to
the
sorts

of
wider
generalizations
that
would
be
of
interest
to
scholars
in
cognate
disciplines.
While
it
is

certainly
the
case
that
the
coverage
of
excavations
and
surveys
is
still
poor
in
many
regions
of

the
Islamic
world,
and
the
backlog
of
unpublished
projects
remains
a
problem,
it
is
not
a
lack
of

published
 field
 reports
 that
 stands
 in
 the
 way
 of
 archaeology
 making
 a
 more
 significant

contribution
 to
 the
 study
 of
 past
 Islamic
 cultures.25

 The
 dry
 and
 technical
 character
 of

excavation
reports
has
drawn
criticism
from
some
prominent
names
in
archaeological
theory,26


and
this
is
no
less
true
for
the
publication
of
Islamic
sites.
Beyond
the
matters
of
presentation

and
language,
however,
there
are
two
priorities
for
Islamic
archaeology
if
it
is
to
increase
its

accessibility
and
relevance:
first,
the
writing
of
accounts
of
specific
regions
or
periods
based
on

the
synthesis
of
data
from
large
numbers
of
excavations
and
surveys;
and
second,
studies
that

focus
upon
the
methods
employed
by
archaeologists
in
the
interpretation
of
data
from
Islamic

sites.
Several
fine
examples
of
the
first
type
of
text
exist,
but
much
more
work
is
required
to

communicate
the
theory
and
practice
of
Islamic
archaeology
to
a
non‐specialist
audience.

































































25

For
an
illuminating
demonstration
of
the
problems
involved
in
the
synthesis
of
archaeological
data,
see
the

essay
by
Michael
Morony
and
the
response
by
Donald
Whitcomb
in
Irene
Bierman,
ed.,
Identity
and
Material

Culture
in
the
Early
Islamic
World,
UCLA
Near
East
Center
Colloquium
Series
(Los
Angeles:
Center
for
Near
East

Studies,
1995).

26

For
instance,
Christopher
Tilley,
“Excavation
as
theatre,”
Antiquity
63,
1989:
275‐80.