with the need to build middle-range theory and in the amount of work related to formation processes (taphonomy), faunal analysis, and regional studies.

The rebirth of democracy at a national level has led to the return of the exiled archaeologists who emigrated in 1976, the creation of new careers in archaeology at other universities, and more opportunities for research. The Argentine National Congress of Archaeology now meets regularly and more frequently than in the past—every two to three years—and a number of important regional meetings address specific topics. Northwest regional studies have begun to flourish once again, and the Pampas has been definitively incorporated into archaeological discussions, as have the Sierras Centrales, Cuyo, and the Mesopotamian regions. New research areas in Patagonia have also been incorporated. Unfortunately, however, some parts of Argentina, such as the Chaco, remain almost archaeologically unknown today.

After the 1980s it became common for Argentine archaeologists to pursue postdoctoral work overseas—especially in the United States and the United Kingdom—and Argentine archaeologists now routinely attend international congresses and meetings, not only submitting papers but also organizing symposiums. In addition, a number of Argentine students have taken postgraduate courses in North American and European universities since 1995.

Argentine Archaeology Today

As a normal consequence of the maturing of Argentine archaeology, there are few debates today pitting the northwest against Patagonia or processual against more traditional archaeology. Theoretically and methodologically speaking, Argentine archaeology now comprises a variety of perspectives: the evolutionist approach (Lanata, Borrero); social theory in all its different aspects (Nielsen, Acuto, Lazarri, Zarankin); postprocessual archaeology (Haber); historical archaeology (Senatore, Bárcena); urban archaeology (Weissel); underwater archaeology (Elkin); and heritage and conservation (Endere and Curtoni). There is also an increase in contract archaeology. The chronological frameworks of the northwest from the 1960s are being rebuilt and extended not only by members of younger generations of archaeologists, such as Ratto and Muscio, but also by older and more established members of the field, such as Pérez Gollán and Tarragó. Finally, the Asociación de Arqueológos Profesionales de la República Argentina (AAPRA) was founded in 1998, and J. Rodriguez was elected as its first president.

José Luis Lanata

See also

Bolivia; Brazil

References

Fernández, Jorge. 1982. Historia de la arqueología Argentina. Mendoza: Asociación Cuyana de Antropología.

González, Alberto R. 1985. “Cincuenta años de arqueología del Noroeste Argentino (1930– 1980): Apuntes de un casi testigo y algo de protagonista.” American Antiquity 50: 505–517.

Orquera, Luis A. n.d. “Historia de las investigaciones arqueológicas en Pampa, Patagonia y Tierra del Fuego.” Ms.

Politis, Gustavo. 1995. “The Socio-Politics of the Development of Archaeology in Hispanic South America.” In Theory in Archaeology. A World Perspective, 197–228. Ed. P. Ucko. London and New York: Routledge.

Ashmolean Museum

Opening on 24 May 1683, the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England, was originally based on the private collection of Elias Ashmole (1617–1692), which was presented to the University of Oxford. At the core of Ashmole’s gift was a collection originally assembled by John Tradescant the elder (died 1638) and his son John Tradescant (1608–1662).

The first curator of the Asmolean Museum was Robert Plot, an antiquary of distinction. Unusually, from the start the Ashmolean was open to the public and had clear research and teaching (as well as display) functions. The fortunes of the museum waxed and waned over the next 150 years with the natural history side of the collections assuming greater importance than the human antiquities.

However, from the mid-nineteenth century onward, the character of the Ashmolean Museum changed to the form we know today, comprising