Voss, B. L. 2015. What’s new? Rethinking ethnogenesis in the archaeology of colonialism. American Antiquity 80(4):655-670. (original) (raw)
Related papers
What's new? Rethinking ethnogenesis in the archaology of colonialism
D ebates in the archaeology of colonialism recently have turned to questions of new and old. For decades, the discussion was dominated by questions of "what's new": how peoples, cultures, and communities were transformed through colonial encounters and entanglements. Various models of culture change-for example, acculturation, assimilation, bricolage, creolization, culture contact, diaspora, hybridity, invented tradition, mestizaje, syncretism, transculturation, and transnationalism-foreground the dynamic and at times creative ways that colonized, captive, and subordinate populations engaged with newly imposed political systems and cultural influences. Although there has been considerable debate about the relative strengths and weaknesses of particular models, all of these approaches emphasize change and novelty as a defining characteristic of colonial and postcolonial societies.
To identity and beyond: exploring the limits of the archaeological study of identity
2021
The concept of identity has been a focus for scholarly attention in archaeology for the last three decades. This thesis investigates the methodological problems and possibilities of the archaeological applicability of identity.By exploring the constraints on interpretation and the ways in which other disciplines, notably anthropology and social psychology, investigate the concept the epistemological boundary conditions within which archaeological interpretations of the past in terms of identity are made is sketched. Archaeology's engagement with 'identity' is assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively. A quantitative analysis of the occurrence of the term 'identity' in six journals covering the period 1990-2018 provides a (relatively course-grained) sense of the magnitude of the discipline's commitment of recourses to studying this subject. This quantitative analysis is complemented by a more in-depth, qualitative analysis of nine monographs dedicated to ...
Identity Crisis: Archaeological Perspectives on Social Identity.
Identity Crisis As a component of daily practice, identity itself is a characteristic of both individuals and groups. The construction and maintenance of identity in the past may not have been straightforward; many of our social categories such as race, gender, and social status likely did not hold the same meaning to the people of the past (Meskell 2001; Wynne-Jones and Croucher 2007). Theorizing social identity in archaeology thus warrants recognition that, although our subjects are dead and long-buried, they were once people with lives, friends, goals and senses of self. We should, therefore, study past identities through the reconstruction of daily practices and social interactions to gain a greater understanding of the people of the past. Michel Foucault has argued that identity is a form of social construction which people impose on themselves and others (Foucault 1994). The contributions to this volume highlight the fact that there are, indeed, multiple, layered and plural identities, created through both self-definition and the perceptions of others. Consequently, the concepts and definitions of identity discussed in this volume are dynamic, changing with history, environment and socio-political relations (Martindale 2009; Wynne-Jones and Croucher 2007). For archaeologists who are forced to examine a static record, it is important to recognize the dynamic nature of social identity and to adopt a more active view of the archaeological record in which the construction of identity occurs as a fluid and continuous process (Meskell 2001). As archaeologists, we often operate under the assumption that artifacts and material remains have a direct relationship with social identity (Casella and Fowler 2005). Although material remains do serve as a good indication of social identity in many cases, this explicitly material focus is not necessarily justified. As the contributors to this volume show, the examination of material culture is only one of many ways in which social identity can be accessed in the archaeological record. Because identity is the product of social processes, the study of the daily lives of groups and individuals through material remains, iconography, communal events, dietary practices or burial customs can lead to a greater understanding of the mechanisms of identity construction and maintenance within a given culture (McGuire and Wurst 2002). As the contributions in this volume illustrate, the question of identity in archaeology is intriguing given the different approaches to identity construction and the different responses of individuals to social stimuli in past societies. The articles included in this volume explore the study of identity in a variety of contexts, ask different questions and offer new interpretations of the archaeological record. The Contributions The papers in this volume represent only a small subset of a wide range of papers from different regions and countries presented at the 2009 Chacmool Conference. The diverse array papers presented here should include something for everyone, from new approaches or ways of looking at identity in the archaeological record to new perspectives on social identity. Archaeologists in the Old and New Worlds are faced with different problems, materials and social contexts in their approaches to the study of identity. For organizational purposes, we have opted to present the papers dealing with the Old World first, followed by those dealing with New World culture areas, but we encourage our readers to explore the innovative approaches used in other parts of the world which may, in fact, have applicability in their own culture area. However, the volume begins with a paper by Andrew Gardner, the keynote speaker at the 2009 Conference, who presents a discussion of theoretical approaches and considerations in the archaeological study of identity. He discusses the fluid and multiple nature of social identity, which make it difficult to discover this ever-changing concept in the archaeological record. Identities, Gardner suggests, have the power to both divide and unite present and past populations. He nevertheless suggests that social identity can and should be studied archaeologically and presents a number of theoretical and methodological techniques for doing so. Gardner‘s encouragement to take up thestudy of social identity provides a nice lead into the remaining papers of the volume.
Approaches to the Archaeology of Ethnogenesis: Past and Emergent Perspectives
Recently, interest in the archaeology of ethnogenesis has surged. This renewed interest stems from innovations in the historical study of ethnogenesis, theoretical shifts favoring multidirectional agency, and relevant contemporary sociopolitical debates. Theoretical problems surrounding the appropriateness of the social science concept of “ethnicity,” however, have made the comparative study of ethnogenesis difficult. Drawing from past and emergent perspectives adds renewed vigor to comparative studies of ethnogenesis. A methodology that integrates the different types of theory can resolve the theoretical tensions in the archaeological study of ethnogenesis.
Archaeological Review from Cambridge - 34.2: Beyond the Human: Applying Posthumanist Thinking to Archaeolog, 2019
This volume explores a variety of identities in the context of environmental and social dissonance. As the editors state in the first chapter, which functions as an introduction, this book is concerned with "human adaptation to environments that are in some way dissonant with the familiar world" (2), and this adaptation largely relates to the production and reproduction of identity. Defining identity might seem to be an impossible task. However, Diane F. George in her chapter on the roots of American identity has solved this question effortlessly: "Identity means simply what we tell others about who we are: the groups we belong to, the belief we hold and the qualities and characteristics that define-or not-define us" (257). The book embraces a wide range of possible identities. If you thought that identity mostly concerns nationality, this volume might some as something of a surprise. It covers racial, class-related, immigrant, colonial and indigenous questions, as well as identities of metropolitan versus rural, seaside versus forest. The volume is not for prudish readers either, since it bravely engages with questions of sexual identity such as promiscuity and prostitution. Several chapters touch on gendered spaces and material culture-masculinity is in question regarding the white Creole in Monserat or the Roman legions on Hadrian's wall, while femininity is discussed in connection
Identity/Crisis." Archaeological Dialogues 10/1:77-95 (2003)
Archaeology has an identity problem. At least three factors are involved. The postmodern view of radical instability has collided with processual aversions towards 'meaning', resulting in a stalemate regarding the past. Modern problems with identity, including the role of the past and archaeology itself, have generated additional confusion. Identity is a hall of mirrors which parallels other epistemological debates in archaeology, all of which revolve around the divide between realism and idealism. Archaeology cannot resolve this problem. The solution is not, however, to become either better technicians or more strident ideologues, but to become more informed contributors to larger debates in the human sciences and philosophy, in an atmosphere of civility and pluralism.
Recent discussion of the formation and alteration of Philistine identity in the Levantine Iron Age continues to reference primarily pottery styles and dietary practices. Such traditional narratives propose that the Philistines comprised one group of the 'Sea Peoples' and that the cultural boundary markers that distinguished their society in the Iron Age I (twelftheleventh century BC) diminished in importance and disappeared suddenly in the early Iron Age IIA (tenth century BC), with the ascendancy of the Judahite kingdom. Based on data from the Levant (especially Philistia), the Aegean and Cyprus, we argue for a more complex understanding of the Philistines who came to the region with an identity that drew on, and continued to engage with, a broad range of foreign artefact styles and cultural practices with non-Levantine connections. Concurrently they incorporated local cultural attributes, at least until the late ninth century BC, a feature that we argue was unrelated to the supposed tenth century expansion of the Judahite kingdom. ; Hitchcock in press a). The result was encounters, entanglements, appropriations and merging of numerous constituent groups, due to shared economic and/or socio-political interests, each with its own characteristics. Sorting out these varying relations goes beyond the scope of this paper, whose purpose is to initiate debate and promote future research into a range of issues relating to Mediterranean identity. As discussed below, cultural interaction is demonstrated in Philistine culture by the presence of extensive links to many different worlds that served as conceptual and physical sources of material goods and religio-cultural practices: Cypriot (Cypro-Minoan script, hearths, bi-metallic knives, bronze stands, seal styles, pottery styles), Anatolian (hearths, personal names, pottery styles), Mycenaean (cooking jugs, preference for hearths, pottery styles, personal names, loom weights, figurine styles), Minoan (sacrificial practices and ritual activity, seal use, iconography, pottery motifs, plaster technology), south-central European (e.g. Edelstein and Schreiber 2000; Wachsmann 2000; Sherratt 2003) and possibly even Italian (handmade burnished ware ('barbarian ware'), e.g. Karageorghis 2011; Pilides and Boileau 2011).
Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 2013
Recent discussion of the formation and alteration of Philistine identity in the Levantine Iron Age continues to reference primarily pottery styles and dietary practices. Such traditional narratives propose that the Philistines comprised one group of the 'Sea Peoples' and that the cultural boundary markers that distinguished their society in the Iron Age I (twelftheleventh century BC) diminished in importance and disappeared suddenly in the early Iron Age IIA (tenth century BC), with the ascendancy of the Judahite kingdom. Based on data from the Levant (especially Philistia), the Aegean and Cyprus, we argue for a more complex understanding of the Philistines who came to the region with an identity that drew on, and continued to engage with, a broad range of foreign artefact styles and cultural practices with non-Levantine connections. Concurrently they incorporated local cultural attributes, at least until the late ninth century BC, a feature that we argue was unrelated to the supposed tenth century expansion of the Judahite kingdom. ; Hitchcock in press a). The result was encounters, entanglements, appropriations and merging of numerous constituent groups, due to shared economic and/or socio-political interests, each with its own characteristics. Sorting out these varying relations goes beyond the scope of this paper, whose purpose is to initiate debate and promote future research into a range of issues relating to Mediterranean identity. As discussed below, cultural interaction is demonstrated in Philistine culture by the presence of extensive links to many different worlds that served as conceptual and physical sources of material goods and religio-cultural practices: Cypriot (Cypro-Minoan script, hearths, bi-metallic knives, bronze stands, seal styles, pottery styles), Anatolian (hearths, personal names, pottery styles), Mycenaean (cooking jugs, preference for hearths, pottery styles, personal names, loom weights, figurine styles), Minoan (sacrificial practices and ritual activity, seal use, iconography, pottery motifs, plaster technology), south-central European (e.g. Edelstein and Schreiber 2000; Wachsmann 2000; Sherratt 2003) and possibly even Italian (handmade burnished ware ('barbarian ware'), e.g. Karageorghis 2011; Pilides and Boileau 2011).