A Must Read for Armchair Archaeologists

Archaeology magazine gives the non-specialist a look into the fascinating world of archaeology. It is written in laymen's terms and on a level that assumes some general knowledge of famous archaeological sites without delving into minutiae that might be boring to some readers. There are excellent articles with a more than adequate amount of detail. The articles are usually copiously illustrated with colour photos. There are also very useful book reviews at the end of every issue. I have bought several books based on the recommendations given by these reviews. I've subscribed for two years and I was so impressed with the magazine that I bought the last ten years of back issues on Eb*y in order to have a reference library of my own.

Pompous and Self Important...Get Into the REAL World!!!

The editors of 'Archaeology' magazine truly live in the world of the past. Wait, let me start with what is good.

The articles are generally good in terms of scholarship and general content, though they are a bit too pretentious and (yes) pompous for me. This magazine is not a scholarly journal but geared for more of a popular audience, yet the snobbery practically oozes from the pages. Oh dear, I am on the good stuff. I digress. The paper quality and the photography is very nice though the layout could be a little more eye-pleasing. However, the appearance and initial appeal of the magazine is at first nice overall.

However, back to my original statement about pomponcity and "living in the past." The editors of "Archaeology" magazine absolutely positively live their narrowminded lives with their heads in the, well, sand is what I can say here, under the notion that archaeological sites can be preserved in pristine circumstances and that under NO condition whatsoever should any antiquities ever be allowed to be sold, ever never NEVER EVER!! And, private collectors and current holders of less than pedigreed collections of antiquities should be prosecuted for having stolen goods. This is such a great loss to science in that many people have had thousands of real and invaluable Antiquities in their families for centuries and would GLADLY allow scientists to study them, opening the door for amazing "new" discoveries EXCEPT that under the current laws, their "treasures" would be confiscated and these patrons would be fined and perhaps even taken to court. Why bother!!

Isn't the point of it all to have the ability to study the Antiquities? And to have the public perhaps have the ability to view these collections? And to have these Antiquities be properly conserved? Certainly the vast numbers of items simply wasting away in the Smithsonian collections are example enough that "public" ownership of Antiquities is not the best method for proper handling of these items. Certainly a private display of some fine Pre-Columbian artifacts would yield just as great of scholarship as the horrid debacle happening to the Chinchorro mummies in Peru?

I subscribe to 'Archaeology,' and will continue to do so, only for the alternative scholarship. A better choice for my point of view is 'Archaeology Odyssey'.

Past Imperfect

There was a time what Archeology was the best non-academic journal covering the general field of archeology. Unfortunately, this may still be true, but the meaning of best has changed considerable over the years. The Archeology of today has given in to the requirements of the competitive marketplace, and what were once in-depth studies have now become news stories which are as likely to tell you that a particular archeologist is good looking as they are to give you his or her academic credentials.

It also seems to me that the magazine has more Eurocentric (and Judeo-Christian centric) over the years. Which tends to give some of the articles a bit of a slant when discussing cultures that aren't important to that particular viewpoint. Since my own interest has shifted from Middle-Eastern and North African to Asian this can get irksome. Another thing that frustrates me is a lack of a bibliography at times when one would be very helpful.

Still, this is a well-made magazine that covers a wide field of subjects. It is probably unfair to insist that they cover everything equally well, especially when they have become more dependent on independent writers. The photography is always good, and the writing and editing are consistent and literate. If you can bring yourself to deal with titles like 'Everyone Loves a Bloodbath' and 'Moche Mug Shots' there still is a lot of good reading on these pages. Just remember to keep a grain of salt handy.