Against reactionary populism: towards a new public archaeology

González‐Ruibal, Alfredo; González, Pablo Alonso; Criado-Boado, Felipe

doi:10.15184/aqy.2017.227

Cited by 102 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is not exclusive of indigenous archaeologies, but of community archaeology more generally. Communities are usually presented as systematically resisting the State, capitalism and colonialism and their respective ideologies [28]. There are, however, several cases of indigenous or subaltern communities siding with those in power.…”

Section: Imagining the Othermentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Issues in Indigenous Archaeology: Problems with Difference and Collaboration

González‐Ruibal

2019

bioethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The critique of archaeology made from an indigenous and postcolonial perspective has been largely accepted, at least in theory, in many settler colonies, from Canada to New Zealand. In this paper, I would like to expand such critique in two ways: on the one hand, I will point out some issues that have been left unresolved; on the other hand, I will address indigenous and colonial experiences that are different from British settler colonies, which have massively shaped our understanding of indigeneity and the relationship of archaeology to it. I am particularly concerned with two key problems: alterity – how archaeologists conceptualize difference – and collaboration – how archaeologists imagine their relationship with people from a different cultural background. My reflections are based on my personal experiences working with communities in southern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa and South America that differ markedly from those usually discussed by indigenous archaeologies.

show abstract

Section: Imagining the Othermentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Issues in Indigenous Archaeology: Problems with Difference and Collaboration

González‐Ruibal

2019

bioethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; Shahab and Isakhan ). Spurring a debate about versions of the past and their corresponding publics, González‐Ruibal, González, and Criado‐Boado () challenge scholars to imagine a “new public archaeology” that critically responds to different interest groups, in particular by recognizing and countering the reactionary populist voices who mobilize understandings of the past in service of nationalism. They argue for a practice and pedagogy that will “make archaeology political again” (513) by not only uncovering the story of humanity and its diversity but also provocatively confronting histories that reproduce prejudice, racism, and xenophobia.…”

Section: Contemporary Politics and Heritagementioning

confidence: 99%

New Digs: Networks, Assemblages, and the Dissolution of Binary Categories in Anthropological Archaeology

Kosiba

2019

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropological archaeology has long been a process of categorization. The history of the subdiscipline could be rendered in terms of an ongoing project to create, critique, and then refashion the categories by which archaeologists understand and explain social and ecological processes. Despite ever-changing theoretical tides, many archaeologists have continued to adhere to a lingua franca that demarcates their object of study, whether "the past," "nature," complexity, material culture, or historical knowledge. In 2018, strong currents in archaeological scholarship have both challenged and washed out the boundaries of many of these epistemological mainstays. This was more than a postmodern exercise to question metanarratives of history or to destabilize supposed social universals. The recent scholarship develops innovative theoretical perspectives and sophisticated methodological tools to shed light on the varied human interactions, practices, and projects that were previously occluded by research too sharply focused on bounded categories such as periods, polities, adaptations, and meanings. Furthermore, archaeologists are now more than ever critically examining the colonial institutions that they perpetuate and seeking to establish new common ground with Indigenous communities. A decidedly archaeological perspective seems to be taking shape.This is a view that sees social life from the ground up in terms of complicated relationships between people, things, and other organisms that cannot be reduced to catchall categories. [year in review, archaeology, archaeological theory, current issues, Indigenous archaeology, environmental anthropology] RESUMEN La arqueología antropológica ha sido durante mucho tiempo un proceso de categorización. La historia de la subdisciplina podría ser descrita en términos de un proyecto continuo de crear, criticar y luego rehacer las categorías a través de las cuales los arqueólogos entienden y explican los procesos sociales y ecológicos. A pesar de las mareas teóricas siempre cambiantes, muchos arqueólogos han continuado adhiriéndose a una lengua franca que demarca su objeto de estudio, ya sea "el pasado", "naturaleza", complejidad, cultura material o conocimiento histórico.En 2018, corrientes fuertes en la investigación arqueológica han tanto retado como difuminado los límites de muchos de los pilares epistemológicos. Esto fue más que un ejercicio posmoderno para cuestionar metanarrativas de la historia o para desestabilizar supuestos universales sociales. La reciente investigación desarrolla perspectivas teóricas innovadoras y herramientas metodológicas sofisticadas para arrojar luz sobre las variadas interacciones humanas, prácticas y proyectos que estuvieron previamente ocluidos por investigación excesivamente enfocada en categorías delimitadas tales como períodos, unidades políticas, adaptaciones y significados. Además, los arqueólogos ahora están más que nunca examinando críticamente las instituciones coloniales que perpetúan y buscando establecer un nuevo terreno común con las c...

show abstract

“…Earlier in the year Antiquity published a debate on the relationship between politics and archaeology, given the resurgence of nationalism and reactionary populism in places like the US and UK (and now Brazil). González-Ruibal et al (2018a) argued that archaeology must be further decolonised and that the popular model of postcolonialism through multivocality is no longer tenable in this environment. In the debate that followed, Hamilakis (2018) agreed that we must shift from ' ethics to politics' and away from theories like multivocality, although he cautioned that it might be too universalising of an approach.…”

Section: Archaeology Todaymentioning

confidence: 99%

From TRAC to TRAJ: Widening Debates in Roman Archaeology

Hanscam¹,

Quiery²

2018

Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The publication of this first issue of the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal (TRAJ) is an indication of the accomplishments that the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (TRAC) has had in the past (nearly) three decades. In the editorial for this first issue, the guest editors celebrate the successes of TRAC, but also reflect back upon its history to re-examine the field of Roman studies today. While Roman studies has become more diverse and inclusive over time, a lack of racial/ethnic and gender diversity is still apparent. The editorial here addresses this lack of diversity in an attempt to encourage scholars to engage more directly with such difficult issues.

show abstract

Against reactionary populism: towards a new public archaeology

Cited by 102 publications

References 28 publications

Ethical Issues in Indigenous Archaeology: Problems with Difference and Collaboration

Ethical Issues in Indigenous Archaeology: Problems with Difference and Collaboration

New Digs: Networks, Assemblages, and the Dissolution of Binary Categories in Anthropological Archaeology

From TRAC to TRAJ: Widening Debates in Roman Archaeology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About