Advertisement

Archaeologies

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 11–23 | Cite as

The Earth of the Modern

Research

Abstract

One of the central questions in comparative studies of colonialism is what makes more recent variants of imperial extension so culturally distinctive, aside from the more obvious political-economic dimensions? This set of papers focuses on how European and Euro-American promulgated variants of colonialism can be viewed as embodying central tenets of modernism, such as progressivism, technocentrism, and hybridity. Moreover, the authors demonstrate how colonial practices in the era of the modern were not merely the result of policies emanating from imperial capitals, but were an outgrowth of conflict, mediation, and accommodation between colonizer and colonized. Thus, archaeological research is important for stressing that the past five centuries have seen a time of contested modernities, rather than the growth of ‘a’ modernist sensibility.

Keywords

Historical Archaeologist Orthogonal Polygon Traditional Core Colonial Encounter Archaeological Collection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Resumen

Una de las preguntas centrales en los estudios comparativos del colonialismo es: ¿qué es lo que hace que las variantes más recientes de la extensión imperial sean culturalmente diferentes, aparte de las dimensiones políticas y económicas más obvias? Este grupo de ponencias está enfocado en la manera en la que las variantes promulgadas por europeos y euro-norteamericanos del colonialismo pueden ser consideradas como la expresión de los principios del modernismo, como por ejemplo el progresismo, el tecnocentrismo y la hibridación. Además, los autores demuestran como las prácticas coloniales en la era moderna no eran meramente el resultado de políticas que emanaban de los capitales imperiales, sino que eran un foco de conflicto, mediación y acomodamiento entre el colonizador y el colonizado. Así es que la investigación arqueológica es importante para subrayar que los pasados cinco siglos han sido tiempos de modernidades interpeladas, más que de crecimiento de una sensibilidad modernista.

Résumé

Dans les études comparatives sur le colonialisme, une des questions centrales, est ce qui fait que les plus récentes variantes de l’extension de l’impérialisme sont culturellement si distinctives par rapport aux dimensions politico-économiques qui sont plus évidentes. Cet ensemble de contributions se concentrent sur la façon dont les Européens et les Euro-américains édictent des variantes du colonialisme qui peuvent être considérées comme des principes centraux du modernisme, comme le progressisme, le technocentrisme et l’hybridité. De plus, les auteurs démontrent comment les pratiques coloniales de l’ère moderne n’ont pas été seulement le résultat de politiques émanant des capitales de l’impérialisme, mais aussi une prolongation du conflit, de la médiation et de l’accommodement entre les colonisateurs et les colonisés. Dans ce sens, la recherche archéologique est importante afin de mettre l’emphase sur le fait que les cinq derniers siècles ont été une période de contestation des modernités, plutôt que le développement d’une sensibilité moderne.

References Cited

  1. Agee J., Walker E. 1941 Let Us Now Praise Famous Men: Three Tenant Families. Houghton Mifflin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Appadurai A. 1996 Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer M. 1988 Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Asad T. (editor) 1973 Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. Humanities Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Berman M. 1982 All That is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity. Penguin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhabha H.K. 1994 The Location of Culture. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper F. 2005 Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  8. Cusick, J.G. (editor) 1998. Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology. Occasional Paper No. 25. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.Google Scholar
  9. Dietler, M. 1998. Consumption, Agency, and Cultural Entanglement: Theoretical Implications of a Mediterranean Colonial Encounter. In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, edited by J.G. Cusick, pp. 288–315. Occasional Paper No. 25. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.Google Scholar
  10. Van Dommelen, P. 2005. Colonial Interactions and Hybrid Practices: Phoenician and Carthaginian Settlement in the Ancient Mediterranean. In The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters, edited by G.J. Stein, pp. 109–141. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.Google Scholar
  11. Eisenstadt S.N. 2000 Multiple Modernities. Daedalus 129(1):1–29Google Scholar
  12. Englund H., J. Leach 2000 Ethnography and the Meta-Narratives of Modernity. Current Anthropology 41:225–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gosden C. 2003 Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact from 5000 BC to the Present. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Hall M. 2000 Archaeology and the Modern World: Colonial Transcripts in South Africa and the Chesapeake. Routledge Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Harley, J.B. 1988. Maps, Knowledge, and Power. In The Iconography of Landscape, edited by D. Cosgrove and S. Daniels, pp. 277–312. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  16. Horkheimer, M., and T.W. Adorno 2002. A Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, edited by B. Schmid Noer (Edmund Jephcott, translator), Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Knauft, B.M. 2002. Critically Modern: An Introduction. In Critically Modern: Alternatives, Alterities, Anthropologies, edited by B.M. Knauft, pp. 1–54. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  18. Latour, B. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern (translated by Catherine Porter). Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  19. Latour B. 1999 Pandora’s Hope. Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  20. Lightfoot K.G., A. Martinez, A.M. Schiff 1998 Daily Practice and Material Culture in Pluralistic Social Settings: An Archaeological Study of Culture Change and Persistence from Fort Ross, California. American Antiquity 63:199–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Loren, D.D., and C. Reiser 2007. Theorizing Colonialism Through Bodies of Knowledge in Museums. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology Meetings, Williamsburg, Virginia.Google Scholar
  22. Lyons, C.L., and J.K. Papadopoulos 2002. Introduction. In The Archaeology of Colonialism, edited by C.L. Lyons and J.K. Papadopoulos, pp. 1–23. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  23. Ong, A. 1996. Anthropology, China and Modernities: The Geopolitics of Cultural Knowledge. In The Future of Anthropological Knowledge, edited by H. Moore, pp. 60–92. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  24. Pagden A. 1993 European Encounters with the New World. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  25. Phillips R.B. 2005 Re-Placing Objects: Historical Practices for the Second Museum Age. The Canadian Historical Review 86(1):83–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sahlins M. 1993 Goodbye to Tristes Tropes: Ethnography in the Context of Modern World History. The Journal of Modern History 65(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Silliman S.W. 2005 Culture Contact or Colonialism? Challenges in the Archaeology of Native North America. American Antiquity 70(1): 55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sluyter A. 2002 Colonialism and Landscape: Postcolonial Theory and Applications. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MDGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith, C., and H. Burke 2003. In the Spirit of the Code. In A Handbook for Ethics in Archaeology, edited by L.J. Zimmerman, K.D. Vitelli, and J. Hollowell-Zimmer, pp. 177–200. AltaMira Press, Walnut Grove, CA.Google Scholar
  30. Smith C., H. Martin Wobst 2005 Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Stahl A. 2002 Colonial Entanglements and the Practices of Taste. American Anthropology 104:827–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stein G. (ed) 2005 The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters. School of American Research Press, Santa FeGoogle Scholar
  33. Strathern M. 1998. The New Modernities. In Common Worlds and Single Lives: Constituting Knowledge in Pacific Societies, edited by V. Keck, pp. 379–403. Berg, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Thomas J. 2004 Archaeology and Modernity. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Thomas N. 1991 Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  36. Todorov, T. 1999. The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other. Originally published 1982 (Translated by Richard Howard), University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
  37. Trouillot, M.-R. 2002. The Otherwise Modern: Caribbean Lessons from the Savage Slot. In Critically Modern: Alternatives, Alterities, Anthropologies, edited by B.M. Knauft, pp. 220–237. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  38. Weber, M. 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (Translated and edited by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills). Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  39. White R. 1991 The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650–1815. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Archaeological Congress 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and AnthropologyUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Peabody Museum of Archaeology and EthnologyHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations