A requiem for hybridity? The problem with Frankensteins, purées, and mules

Abstract

Hybridity as an interpretive construct in the archaeology of colonialism has encountered many pitfalls, due largely to the way it has been set adrift from clear theoretical anchors and has been applied inconsistently to things, practices, processes, and even people. One of the telltale signs of its problematic nature is the ease with which archaeologists claim to identify the origin and existence of hybridity but the difficulty faced if asked when and how such hybridity actually ends, if it does. In that context, this paper offers a potential requiem for hybridity. If we need not go that far, archaeologists at least need to rein in the ''Frankenstein'' version of hybridity that permeates archaeology and occludes its variable and problematic origins, acknowledge the dangers of accentuating or even celebrating ''purées,'' and beware of the creation of cultural ''mules'' in analytical classifications and interpretations.

An Archaeology of Early Christianity in Vanuatu

“…Recently, scholarship has converged on the issue of persistence and continuity in indigenous practices, including in part a sustained critique of issues of authenticity as they pertain to native communities (Flexner 2014a;Lydon and Burns 2010;Panich 2013;Silliman 2009 Torrence and Clarke, eds 2000). As Silliman (2014) notes, probably the best approaches to hybridity follow the idea that the 'pure' categories (such as native/introduced) don't really exist in practice. What we are in fact observing is the proliferation of hybrids that emerges from the act of creating categories (Latour 1993;see also Flexner 2014a).…”

Anthropological Archaeology in 2015: Entanglements, Reflection, Reevaluation, and Archaeology beyond Disciplinary Boundaries

“…Ideas about colonialism and culture change are also tied to concepts of cultural heritage and identity; these were revisited and revised in 2015 as scholars examined long‐held assumptions about contact, ethnogenesis, hybridity, creolization, and colonial dependencies (Croucher ; Funari and Orser ; Funari and Senatore ; Källén ; Leone and Knauf ; Liebmann ; Morrison and Hauser ; Silliman ; Voss ). Much of this work comes from historical archaeology, an approach that is well suited to investigate the specifics of culture change with both textual and archaeological datasets.…”

“…Hybridity is one mode of investigating bias in research, according to Matthew Liebmann (), who uses case studies from the U.S. Great Plains, the Southwest, and Australia. However, Stephen Silliman () cautions against the uncritical use of this concept and others, which he refers to as “purées and cultural mules.” Barbara Voss () advocates for a mode of investigation that is focused on ethnogenesis, potentially leading toward an understanding of the historical contingencies of identity formation and ultimately the way that humans shape history. These topics transcend traditional archaeological and anthropological concerns.…”

Rethinking cultural hybridity and technology transfer: SEM microstructural analysis of lead glazed ceramics from early colonial Peru

“…The study of artifacts whose forms and decorations bring together elements from multiple cultural traditions has been a recurring theme in the archaeology of culture contact, colonialism, and imperialism. However, scholars have disagreed sharply about what to call such objects and how to make sense of themperhaps most saliently, in a series of recent discussions focused on the concept of cultural hybridity and its applications in archaeology and socio-cultural anthropology (Antonaccio, 2003;Card, 2013;Jiménez, 2011;Liebmann, 2015, Loren, 2015, Palmié, 2013, Silliman, 2015Stockhammer, 2012;Tronchetti and Van Dommelen, 2005;Van Dommelen, 1997;Van Dommelen and Stein, 2005;van Pelt, 2013;VanValkenburgh, 2013).…”