Modern Colonialism, Eurocentrism and Historical Archaeology: Some Engendered Thoughts. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Some years ago, postmodernist positions demonstrated the positivist and evolutionist bias of modern archeology. It was argued that the past is constructed from the present and for the present, as every human group needs to create a discourse on their origins in order to feel security and stability in that present as well as to legitimize and make sense of their present condition. Postprocessual perspectives already unveiled this “political” backstage of the archaeological reconstructions of the past, demonstrating the inconsistence of the processual pretended “objectivity” when studying the past. However, postprocessualists did not go further or deeper in their analysis. They did not question the links between the type of “pasts” that archeology recreates and the type of society we are constructing in the present. This issue will be the center of this text, which will try to analyze the ontological implications of constructing a discourse about human origins based on criteria as change (and not permanence), power (and not cooperation) and reason (and not emotion).
Encyclopedia of Archaeology - 2nd Edition - Elsevier, 2023
Feminist archaeology sees itself as part of the struggle for gender equality. • It has diverse, sometimes even contradictory theoretical foundations and distinctly different emphases and approaches in different countries. • In addition to the past, it makes the institutions of archaeology the object of research. • It aims not only to work within academia, but also to change the general public’s conceptions of the distant past as they are part of today’s gender discourse. This paper presents both the theoretical approaches to archaeology that focus on the past and the more practical approaches that focus on archaeology’s own institutions and its external impact. It makes clear that feminist archaeology is diverse and disparate and goes far beyond women’s concerns. Instead, it challenges the theoretical foundations and unconscious presuppositions of archaeology and claims to change the discipline as a whole as well as popular assumptions about the past.
FEMINIST ARCHAEOLOGY – A NECESSARY ARCHAEOLOGY
This paper is a summary analysis of the current situation in archaeology at the level of gender from its theoretical bases. It deals with the media and personal scope of patriarchy and male chauvinism in archaeology, within the academic field, both within institutions and in field work, as well as the public sample of archaeological studies. It exposes the hair-splitting differences between gender archaeology and feminist archaeology. And it shows some combative cases of feminist archaeology, from the visibility of women in the past and in archaeology, acting in the space of public and social archaeology.
This paper questions whether archaeological thinking and practice have become post-colonial and ethically and politically aware and sophisticated,and comments on a number of instances (militarization of archaeology, sponsorship by ethically tainted global corporations, global publishing practices, the declaration of western metropolitan museums as ‘‘universal’’) where neo-colonial regimes of truth and practice are present, even amongst groups and organisations that advocate de-colonisation. It proposes that new theoretical insights are generated at the moments of inevitable and at times necessary confrontations with these neo-colonial regimes. Finally, it conjures up the figure of new global immigrant in order to not only highlight their plight and the need for archaeologists to fight racism and xenophobia, but also to point out that the exilic position, the on-going questioning of our deep-left attachments to nation-states, institutions and structures, provides the space for radical critique and for new ontological possibilities to emerge. _____________________________________________________
§ 'Reflexiveness' is a term used for the growth of discussions in archaeology on its history, epistemology, and r; social relevance. While much of this reflecting refers to the relation of archaeology and nationalism, leading H to insights into the politicisation of archaeological research and presentation to the public and the use of the 5 past for ideological purposes, still we can witness many parallels to the use of prehistory for the creation of a • §, European identity. After briefly commenting on discussions on different nationalisms and national and cul-_o 8 tural identity, I will present a short history of ideas of Europe, followed by a consideration of two examples •5 < of the attempt to create the lacking founding myth of post-cold-war Europe. In the end, it is argued that a 'Reflexive Theory' should necessarily replace current rather politically motivated 'reflexiveness' and is needed to examine critically the Europeanist notion of European archaeology.
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.