Advertisement

An Entanglement of Sorts: Archaeology, Ethics, Praxis, Multiculturalism

  • Cristóbal Gnecco
Chapter
Part of the Ethical Archaeologies: The Politics of Social Justice book series (ETHARCHAEOL, volume 1)

Abstract

This introductory paper explores the emergence and consolidation of a multicultural ethics in archaeology, especially as it relates to a disciplinary accommodation to changing times, thus solidifying its modern outlook.

Keywords

Social Justice Ethical Principle Ethical Code Political Correctness Social Accountability 
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.

References

  1. Blaser, M. (2009). Political ontology: Cultural studies without “cultures”? Cultural Studies, 23(5–6), 873–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. De la Cadena, M. (2008). La producción de otros conocimientos y sus tensiones: ¿de una antropología andinista a la interculturalidad? In G. L. Ribeiro & A. Escobar (Eds.), Antropologías del mundo. Transformaciones disciplinarias dentro de sistemas de poder (pp. 241–270). Popayán: Envión.Google Scholar
  3. Escobar, A. (2005). Más allá del Tercer Mundo. Globalización y diferencia. Bogotá: ICANH-Universidad del Cauca.Google Scholar
  4. García, N. (1989). Culturas híbridas: estrategias para entrar y salir de la modernidad. Mexico: Grijalbo.Google Scholar
  5. Green, L. F., Green, D., & Neves, E. G. (2003). Indigenous knowledge and archaeological science: the challenges of public archaeology in the Reserva Uaçá. Journal of Social Archaeology, 3, 366–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hale, C. (2002). Does multiculturalism menace? Governance, cultural rights and the politics of identity in Guatemala. Journal of Latin American Studies, 34, 485–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamilakis, Y. (2007). From ethics to politics. In Y. Hamilakis & P. Duke (Eds.), Archaeology and capitalism: From ethics to politics (pp. 15–40). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  8. Handler, R. (2008). A dangerously elusive method. Disciplines, histories, and the limits of reflexivity. In Q. Castañeda & C. Matthews (Eds.), Ethnographic archaeologies. Reflections on stakeholders and archaeological practices (pp. 95–117). Altamira: Plymouth.Google Scholar
  9. Jameson, F. (1984). Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism. New Left Review, 146, 53–93.Google Scholar
  10. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Meskell, L., & Pels, P. (2005). Introduction: embedding ethics. In L. Meskell & P. Pels (Eds.), Embedding ethics (pp. 1–28). Oxford, UK: Berg.Google Scholar
  12. Moshenska, G. (2008). Ethics and ethical critique in the archaeology of modern conflict. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 41(2), 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pels, P. (1999). Professions of duplexity: a prehistory of ethical codes in anthropology. Current Anthropology, 40(2), 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. SAA. (1996). Principles of archaeological ethics. American Antiquity, 61(3), 451–452.Google Scholar
  15. Tarlow, S. (2001). Decoding ethics. Public Archaeology, 1, 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Trouillot, M.-R. (2003). Global transformations. Anthropology and the modern world. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Viveiros de Castro, E. (2004). Perspectival anthropology and the method of controlled equivocation. Tipití, 2(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
  18. Watkins, J. (2003). Archaeological ethics and American Indians. In L. Zimmerman, K. Vitelli, & J. Hollowell-Zimmer (Eds.), Ethical issues in archaeology (pp. 57–69). Oxford, UK: Altamira.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de AntropologíaUniversidad del CaucaPopayánColombia

Personalised recommendations