Some Reflections on Heritage and Archaeology in the Anthropocene

Solli, Brit; Burström, Mats; Domańska, Ewa; Edgeworth, Matt; González‐Ruibal, Alfredo; Holtorf, Cornelius; Lucas, Gavin; Oestigaard, Terje; Smith, Laurajane; Witmore, Christopher

doi:10.1080/00293652.2011.572677

Cited by 84 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For, as much as this recognition signals an end to the idea of the separation of humans and other-than-humans, it also embodies nostalgia for this same separation, a longing for a mode of existence that, in the words of my colleague Ben Dibley, "never was" (Dibley 2012:144). Nonetheless, as a concept that represents an increasing public and scientific recognition of connectivity ontologies that simultaneously embodies a warning and recognition of a moment of crisis, the Anthropocene seems an appropriate banner under which to reconsider the prospects for heritage within an expanded natural/cultural field of practice (see also Solli et al 2011). The deployment of the term within public discourse neatly embodies the sense of responsibility, attachment and working toward common futures (cf.…”

Section: Dialogical Models Of Heritage and Connectivity Ontologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rose and Robin 2004), I describe this way of understanding heritage in terms of "connectivity ontologies"-modalities of becoming in which life and place combine to bind time and living beings into generations of continuities that work collaboratively to keep the past alive in the present and for the future. Drawing on these alternative ways of understanding heritage, I suggest that rather than taking a social constructivist approach to heritage, as some (e.g., Smith 2006; but see Solli et al 2011) have done in turning away from the idea of heritage value as universal and inherent, we might instead see heritage as collaborative, dialogical and interactive, a materialdiscursive process in which past and future arise out of dialogue and encounter between multiple embodied subjects in (and with) the present.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond “Natural” and “Cultural” Heritage: Toward an Ontological Politics of Heritage in the Age of Anthropocene

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The critique of the separation of natural and cultural heritage is now well established. Rather than repeat arguments against what many would now acknowledge as an artificial separation, this paper considers the implications of working within the expanded field that is created for heritage when the dissolution of the boundaries between natural and cultural heritage is taken as given. I argue that embracing this dissolution allows us to reorient and reconceptualize heritage. Heritage is understood here as a series of diplomatic properties that emerge in the dialogue of heterogeneous human and non-human actors who are engaged in practices of caring for and attending to the past in the present. As such, heritage functions toward assembling futures, and thus might be more productively connected with other pressing social, economic, political, and ecological issues of our time. Indeed, we need not look far to comprehend alternative forms of heritage-making that already model such connectivity ontologies. Fundamental to understanding the value of these alternative heritage ontologies is the recognition of ontological plurality: that different forms of heritage practices enact different realities and hence work to assemble different futures. Following on from this point, I sketch out an ontological politics of and for heritage-a sense of how heritage could be oriented toward composing "common worlds" or "common futures," while maintaining a sensitivity to the ways in which each domain of heritage relates to a particular mode of existence. At stake here is the acknowledgment that each such mode of existence produces its own particular worlds and its own specific futures. I do this within the context of a consideration of the implications of the recognition of a certain set of entanglements of culture with nature, the folding together of what we used to term the human and the non-human, which characterizes our contemporary moment. To illustrate these points, I introduce the framework for a new collaborative research Resumen La crítica de la separación del patrimonio natural y cultural está actualmente bien afianzada. En lugar de presentar argumentos reiterados contra lo que muchos considerarían una separación artificial, en este artículo se tienen en cuenta las implicancias de trabajar dentro del ámbito expandido que se crea para el patrimonio cuando la disolución de los límites entre el patrimonio natural y el cultural se da por descontada. Sostengo que la aceptación de esta disolución nos permite reorientar y reconceptualizar el patrimonio. El patrimonio se entiende aquí como una serie de propiedades diplomáticas que surgen en el diálogo de agentes heterogéneos humanos y no humanos que participan en prácticas de cuidado y atención del pasado en el presente. En consecuencia, el patrimonio funciona hacia la construcción de futuros, y por lo tanto, podría estar más conectado productivamente con otros temas sociales, económicos, políticos y ecológicos apremiantes de nuestro tiempo. Ciertamente, no necesitamos mirar...

show abstract

Section: Dialogical Models Of Heritage and Connectivity Ontologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond “Natural” and “Cultural” Heritage: Toward an Ontological Politics of Heritage in the Age of Anthropocene

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More recent work (e.g., Waters et al 2014), has expanded the number of additional potential stratigraphic markers to include, among others, certain types of anthropogenic soils, the intensification of processes of anthroturbation, changes in reef system ecological functioning and signals, the globalization of biological transfers, and the radiogenic fallout from testing nuclear weapons. As awareness of the concept has grown, and as public and political concern over the future of our planet has stimulated an upscaling in the amount of research funding available for studying the causes, drivers and consequences of climate change, archaeologists have been increasingly drawn into debates over the concept of an Anthropocene and wider human-nature interactions (e.g., Solli 2011;Edgeworth 2014). Of course, climate change research in archaeology is not a new field-there is a long tradition of archaeologists exploring human-environment relationships from different theoretical perspectives and through the study and analysis of a broad range of material, biological and geochemical proxies (for reviews of this intellectual history, see e.g., Sandweiss and Kelley 2012;Davies and M'Mbogori 2013;Van de Noort 2013: 19-43).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Archaeology in the age of the Anthropocene: A critical assessment of its scope and societal contributions

Lane

2015

Journal of Field Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent decades have witnessed heightened public and governmental awareness of the nature and scale of environmental challenges likely to face the planet over the course of the next fifty to one hundred years. Scholars from across a broad range of disciplines have been drawn into these debates and have begun to reorient their research towards finding solutions to some of the most pressing problems and to devising more sustainable and resilient livelihoods. Archaeologists, with their conventional orientation toward past events and processes have been rather slower to engage with these issues. Recently, however, there has been a steady shift within the discipline so as to incorporate more future-oriented perspectives, and 'the use of the past to plan for a better future' is rapidly becoming a common theme within archaeological research projects and publications. While welcoming some of these developments, this paper offers a critical assessment of the various claims that are now being made of archaeology's potential to help overcome current environmental challenges and its contributions to defining and understanding 'the Anthropocene.'

show abstract

“…For some archaeologists, the Anthropocene, conceived as a recent phenomenon, severs the necessary relationship between modernity and history (Solli et al 2011). That is, the intentional and unintentional human manipulation of environments at multiple scales, both temporally and spatially, are essential for creating habitable landscapes.…”

Section: A Future Past Imaginedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Earth Systems, Human Agency, and the Anthropocene: Planet Earth in the Human Age

Braje

2015

J Archaeol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A proposal to designate a new geological epoch of our own makingthe Anthropocene-is being considered by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), part of the International Union of Geological Sciences. Based on a set of formal criteria, there is growing consensus for a Holocene-Anthropocene boundary set at some point in the last 200 years. A number of scientists have questioned the utility of such a designation because it overlooks the millennia-long history of human impacts on the planet and fails to focus on the causes of human domination of the Earth in favor of the effects. I review these debates and synthesize a variety of proposals for an Anthropocene beginning 10,000 years ago to as little as 50. I then review a number of parallel debates focused less on the geosciences and more on the political, social, and institutional implications of the Anthropocene. I demonstrate how and why formal ICS criteria for the designation of geological time units may be inadequate for effectively meeting the underlying rationale for designating a human-induced geological epoch and the role it is currently and, potentially, will continue to play in the court of public opinion.

show abstract

Some Reflections on Heritage and Archaeology in the Anthropocene

Cited by 84 publications

References 57 publications

Beyond “Natural” and “Cultural” Heritage: Toward an Ontological Politics of Heritage in the Age of Anthropocene

Beyond “Natural” and “Cultural” Heritage: Toward an Ontological Politics of Heritage in the Age of Anthropocene

Archaeology in the age of the Anthropocene: A critical assessment of its scope and societal contributions

Earth Systems, Human Agency, and the Anthropocene: Planet Earth in the Human Age

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About