Archaeology, conflict and contemporary identity in the north of Ireland. Implications for theory and practice in comparative archaeologies of colonialism

Abstract

Current trends in historical archaeology emphasize the centrality of capitalism and colonial discourse in examining commonalities in the archaeologies of fictive worlds such as the British Atlantic. Yet far from informing archaeological practice, overly simplistic incorporation of postcolonial and neo-Marxian approaches in comparative archaeologies can actually impede our ability to disentangle the complexities of the early modern colonial experience in a socially relevant fashion. While the disparate colonial settlements of the Atlantic share a recognizable material culture as physical testament to the overarching impact of European expansion, contemporary implications and memories of colonial entanglements vary wildly. A critical consideration of the role of overtly theoretical approaches in developing a nuanced archaeology of the early modern period in the north of Ireland, where the construction of presentday identities is firmly rooted in dichotomous understandings of the impact of British expansion in the 16th and 17th centuries, raises broader questions about our responsibilities in addressing conflict and in redressing the disjuncture between espousing and practising theoretically informed archaeology.

The Measures and Materiality of Improvement in Ireland

“…Ultimately the colonial/post-colonial paradigms provide too restrictive a palette for the study of material change within Ireland in this era. Aside from the contentious issue of whether Ireland can be considered truly colonial or indeed post-colonial (see e.g., Graham 1994;Horning 2006Horning , 2007Kennedy 1993); the discourse of colonialism sits uneasily with emerging Irish material culture in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It was in this era that the country experienced the consumer revolution (see e.g., Courtney 1996;Hall 1992), the affects of which eventually touched all levels in society.…”

The Archaeology of Poverty and the Poverty of Archaeology

“…Concentrating as they did on culture as adaptive and resilient, anthropologically trained historical archaeologists were undoubtedly reluctant to focus on poverty as a condition of degradation, rendered at its base level as a condition of economic want and social exclusion. Archaeologists intent on promoting the culturalogical view have often denegrated non-culturalogical interpretations, sometimes claiming that nonculturalogical analyses victimize the poor (e.g., Horning 2006). The culturalogical position is firmly rooted in the admirable goal of extolling the virtues of the oppressed to adapt and survive, but makes the mistake of ignoring the reasons why struggle and resistance is necessary.…”

The History of Archaeology as Seen Through the Externalism-Internalism Debate: Historical Development and Current Challenges

“…More recently, studies on colonialism have been fuelled by the impact of 'postcolonial studies' in most social sciences, including archaeology (Chadha 2002;Shepherd 2002Shepherd , 2003Schlanger 2003;Seirlis 2004;Horning 2006;Díaz-Andreu 2008;Maffi 2009). Besides nationalism and colonialism, historians of archaeology have also considered archaeology as an expression of the ideology of the politically dominant classes (Trigger 1989;Kehoe 1989;Patterson 1986Patterson , 1995, as a social activity embedded in gender prejudices (Gero 1985;Kehoe 1990;Hager 1997;Díaz-Andreu and Sørensen 1998) …”