Archaeology, diaspora and decolonization

Lilley, Ian

doi:10.1177/1469605306060560

Cited by 38 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Diaspora theory (Hall 1990, Shaye and Frerichs 1993, p. i, Clifford 1994, Brah 1996, Ghannam 1997, Jacobsen 2001a, Byrne 2004, Lilley 2006, Vertovec 2008) is chosen here because it gives a deeper understanding of people's cognitive reactions towards movements into new geographical areas. There has been limited interest in the archaeological application of this theory to prehistoric population movements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Early Settlement of South Norway after the Last Deglaciation: A Diasporic Perspective

Selsing

2012

Norwegian Archaeological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on a theoretical approach of diaspora theory and the use of ethnographical comparative analysis, it is argued that the early settlement of South Norway probably brought about diasporic conditions. Archaeological and natural science records are applied to discuss the migrations of mobile huntergatherers with a shamanistic reindeer culture from the Continent, after deglaciation of the Weichselian ice cap. This paper discusses the diasporic people's identity, their survival as a group, their adaptation to the new environment and the development of an independent reindeer culture characterized by relics and meeting places, after the break in the regular contact between people in the area of origin and South Norway.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Early Settlement of South Norway after the Last Deglaciation: A Diasporic Perspective

Selsing

2012

Norwegian Archaeological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gil Stein (1998) provides an early diasporic framework for archaeology by examining the inherently heterogeneous aspects of prehistoric urban communities. Lilley (2006) uses a diasporic framework to connect the Lapita peoples of the South Pacific across space and time in order to show the utility of the concept in prehistoric circumstances. In a separate piece, he uses it to discuss internally displaced groups such as Australian Aborigines (Lilley 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating a Diasporic Archaeology of Chinese Migration: Tentative Steps Across Four Continents

González-Tennant

2011

Int J Histor Archaeol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article calls for a specific form of comparative inquiry within historical archaeology as drawn from diaspora studies. Such a project encourages archaeologists to compare research from emigrant areas alongside work at overseas sites. This diasporic approach provides new potentials for engaging with the modern world by intersecting with both traditional and new aspects of archaeological practice. In order to showcase these aspects of a diasporic approach, the author explores three case studies from Montana, Peru, and New Zealand -connecting each to its related home area. The case studies explore how data drawn from a group's homeland can support established heritage practices, engage with modern social problems, and illuminate complexities arising within sites based on ethnolinguistic differences within populations.

show abstract

“…Atalay 2006;Echo-Hawk and Zimmerman 2006;McGhee 2008;Lilley 2006;Lydon 2006;Peck et al 2003;Silliman 2008;Smith 2000Smith , 2001Smith and Jackson 2006;Smith et al 2003). Through out much of the world there are indigenous groups who seek some form of political recognition as a bulwark against the erosion of what they see as "special rights" and the broader issues surrounding sovereignty (B. Miller 2003, pp.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Magunkaquog Materiality, Federal Recognition, and the Search for a Deeper History

Mrozowski

Herbster²,

Brown

et al. 2009

Int J Histor Archaeol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the manner in which archaeology can address some of the issues that confront contemporary Native American groups trying to gain federal recognition. Often frustrating and at times capricious, the federal recognition process privileges documentary evidence over other forms of information in determining the political and cultural continuity demanded of groups seeking recognition. Demonstrating cultural continuity is hindered by the antiquated, assimilationist views that underpin the recognition process which equate the adoption of European cultural practices with the loss of Indian identity. This issue of authenticity is linked to even broader questions concerning materiality and the construction of identity. Drawing on archaeological and documentary investigations of the Christian Indian community of Magunkaquog, this paper explores the ambiguities of an archival record that can be challenged by material evidence. Archaeological evidence of cultural persistence discussed in the paper supports the political arguments of contemporary Native American groups that their ancestors maintained their political and cultural identity in the face of European colonization.

show abstract

Archaeology, diaspora and decolonization

Cited by 38 publications

References 31 publications

The Early Settlement of South Norway after the Last Deglaciation: A Diasporic Perspective

The Early Settlement of South Norway after the Last Deglaciation: A Diasporic Perspective

Creating a Diasporic Archaeology of Chinese Migration: Tentative Steps Across Four Continents

Magunkaquog Materiality, Federal Recognition, and the Search for a Deeper History

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About