Introduction: Evaluating Multiple Narratives: Beyond Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist Archaeologies

  • Junko Habu
  • Clare Fawcett
  • John M. Matsunaga

The goal of this volume is to use archaeological case studies from around the world to evaluate the implications of providing alternative interpretations of the past. Our volume is based on papers that were originally presented at a 2004 SAA (Society for American Archaeology) session in Montreal entitled “Beyond Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist Archaeologies: Evaluating Multiple Narratives.” Our work builds on the twin pillars of Bruce Trigger’s (1984) work on alternative archaeologies and Ian Hodder’s discussion of archaeological practice in the context of globalization (1999).

Keywords

Historical Archaeology Archaeological Research Multiple Interpretation American Antiquity Archaeological Project 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Australian Archaeological Association (2007). Code of ethics. South Fremantle, WA, Australia (February 14, 2007); http://www.australianarchaeologicalassociation.com.au/ethics
  2. Bapty, I., & Yates, T. (Eds.). (1990). Archaeology After Structuralism: Poststructuralism and the Practice of Archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bond, G., & Gilliam, A. (Eds.). (1994). Social Construction of the Past: Representation as Power. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Conkey, M., & Gero, J. (1997). Programme to practice: Gender and feminism in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 411–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conkey, M., & Spector, J. (1984). Archaeology and the study of gender. In M. Schiffer (Ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 7 (pp. 1–38). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chambers, E. (2000). Native Tours: The Anthropology of Tourism and Travel. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dietler, M. (1994). “Our ancestors the Gauls”: Archaeology, ethnic nationalism, and the manipulations of Celtic identity in modern Europe. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 584–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fife, W. (2004). Penetrating types: Conflating modernist and postmodernist tourism on the Great Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland. Journal of American Folklore, 117, 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fotiadis, M. (1994). What is archaeology’s ‘mitigated objectivism’ mitigated by? Comments on Wylie. American Antiquity, 59, 545–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gathercole, P., & Lowenthal, D. (Eds.). (1990). The Politics of the Past. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  11. Gero, J., & Conkey, M. (Eds.). (1991). Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Gero, J., Lacy, D., & Blakey, M. (Eds.). (1983). The Socio-Politics of Archaeology. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Department of Anthropology, Research Report No. 23.Google Scholar
  13. Handler, R., & Gable, E. (1997). The New History in an Old Museum: Creating the Past at Colonial Williamsburg. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hodder, I. (1982). Theoretical archaeology: a reactionary view. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hodder, I. (1986). Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hodder, I. (1993). The narrative and rhetoric of material culture sequences. World Archaeology, 25(2), 268–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hodder, I., (1997). “Always momentarily, fluid, flexible:” Towards a reflexive excavation metho-dology. Antiquity, 71, 691–700.Google Scholar
  18. Hodder, I. (1999). Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Hodder, I. (2004a). Dialogical archaeology and its implications. In I. Hodder, Archaeology Beyond Dialogue (pp. 1–7). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hodder, I. (2004b). Who to listen to? Integrating many voices in an archaeological project. In I. Hodder, Archaeology Beyond Dialogue (pp. 23–28). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hodder, I. (Ed.). (2000). Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Example at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Monograph 289.Google Scholar
  22. Jameson, F. (1984). Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism. New Left Review, 146, 52–92.Google Scholar
  23. Joyce, R. (2002). The Languages of Archaeology: Dialogue, Narrative, and Writing. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Kohl, P. (1993). Limits to a postprocessual archaeology (or, the dangers of a new scholasticism). In N. Yoffee & A. Sherratt (Eds.), Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? (pp. 13–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kohl, P., & Fawcett, C. (Eds.). (1995). Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kristiansen, K. (1990). National archaeology in the age of European integration. Antiquity, 64, 825–828.Google Scholar
  27. Lampeter Archaeological Workshop. (1997). Relativism, objectivity and the politics of the past. Archaeological Dialogues, 4(2), 164–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Layton, R. (Ed.). (1989a). Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  29. Layton, R. (Ed.). (1989b). Who Needs the Past? Indigenous Values and Archaeology. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  30. Leone, M. (1981). Archaeology’s relationship to the present and the past. In R. Gould & M. Schiffer (Eds.), Modern Material Culture: The Archaeology of Us (pp. 5–14). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Leone, M., Mullins, P. R., Creveling, M. C., Hurst, L., Jackson-Nash, B., Jones, L. D., Kaiser, H. J., Logan, G. C., & Warner, M. S. (1995). Can an African-American historical archaeology be an alternative voice? In I. Hodder, M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V. Buchli, J. Carman, J. Last, & G. Lucas (Eds.), Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past (pp. 110–124). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Leone, M., Potter, P., & Shackel, P. (1987). Toward a critical archaeology. Current Anthropology, 28(3), 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lyotard, J-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Translated by G. Bennington & B. Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  34. Meltzer, D. (1983). Antiquity of man and the development of American archaeology. In M. Schiffer (Ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 6 (pp. 1–51). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Meskell, L. (2002). The intersections of identity and politics in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meskell, L. (Ed.). (1998). Archaeology Under Fire: Nationalism, Politics, and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Patterson, T. (1986). The last sixty years: Towards a social history of Americanist archaeology in the United States. American Anthropologist, 88, 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmidt, P., & Patterson, T. (Eds.). (1995). Making Alternative Histories: The Practice of Archaeology and History in Non-Western Settings. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
  39. Shanks, M., & Tilley, C. (1987). Reconstructing Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Silverman, H. (2002). Touring ancient times: The present and presented past in contempoarary Peru. American Anthropologist, 104(3), 881–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Swidler, N., Dongoske, K., Anyon, R., & Downer, A. (Eds.). (1997). Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
  42. Tilley, C. (Ed.). (1990). Reading Material Culture: Structuralism, Hermeneutics and Post-Structuralism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Tilley, C. (Ed.). (1993). Interpretative Archaeology. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  44. Trigger, B. G. (1980). Archaeology and the image of the American Indian. American Antiquity, 45(4), 662–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Trigger, B. G. (1984). Alternative archaeologies: Nationalist, colonialist, imperialist. Man, 19, 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Trigger, B. G. (1989). Hyperrelativism, responsibility, and the social sciences. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 26, 776–797.Google Scholar
  47. Trigger, B. G. (1995). Romanticism, nationalism and archaeology. In P. Kohl & C. Fawcett (Eds.), Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology (pp. 263–279). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Trigger, B. G. (1998). Archaeology and epistemology: Dialoguing across the Darwinian chasm. American Journal of Archaeology, 102, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Trigger, B. G. (2003). Introduction: Understanding the material remains of the past. In B. G. Trigger, Artifacts & Ideas: Essays in Archaeology (pp. 1–30). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  50. Trigger, B. G. (2006). A History of Archaeological Thought. Second Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World-System, Vol. I. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  52. Wilk, R. (1985). The ancient Maya and the political present. Journal of Anthropological Research, 41, 307–326.Google Scholar
  53. Wolle, A.-C. & Tringham, R. E. (2000). Multiple Çatalhöyüks on the worldwide web. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Example at Çatalhöyük by Members of the Çatalhöyük Teams (pp. 207–218). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  54. Wylie, A. (1992). The interplay of evidential constraints and political interests: Recent archaeological research on gender. American Antiquity, 57, 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wylie, A. (1993). A proliferation of new archaeologies: “Beyond objectivism and relativism”. In N. Yoffee & A. Sherratt (Eds.), Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? (pp. 20–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wylie, A. (2006). Moderate relativism/political objectivism. In R. F. Williamson & M. S. Bisson (Eds.), The Archaeology of Bruce Trigger: Theoretical Empiricism (pp. 25–35). Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Zimmerman, L. J., Vitelli, K. D., & Hollowell-Zimmer, J. (Eds.). (2003). Ethical Issues in Archaeology. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Junko Habu
    • 1
  • Clare Fawcett
    • 2
  • John M. Matsunaga
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Sociology-AnthropologySt. Francis Xavier UniversityAntigonishCanada

Personalised recommendations