Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium

Harris, Oliver; Cipolla, Craig N.

doi:10.4324/9781315713250

Cited by 128 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While advocating for ontological plurality, on the one hand, these approaches seem to fall into a purifying trap on the other by only selecting qualities that the interpreter sees as radically different from their own world—that is, ignoring continuities and connections (cf. Cipolla ; Cipolla, Quinn, and Levy ; Harris and Cipolla ; Harris and Robb ; Weismantel ; see also Bessire and Bond ). Viveiros de Castro learned about Amazonian perspectival ontologies in which, for example, all humans and animals see themselves as humans, but he did so by synthesizing a rich collection of ethnological literature on Amazonian peoples, derived from direct observation and communication across ontological divides.…”

Section: Wendat Archaeology: a Brief Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The impetus for this archaeological turn to ontology comes partially from post‐processual critiques of the early 1980s (for an overview, see Harris and Cipolla ). Post‐processual archaeologists placed new emphases on meaning and symbolic systems while embracing reflexive models of practice and structuration (e.g., Hodder ).…”

Section: Ontology and Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, the Jesuit records indicate that the Wendat lived and conversed with them. Thus far, worlds‐focused approaches do not address the similarities that existed alongside the differences (Cipolla ; Cipolla, Quinn, and Levy ; Harris and Cipolla ; Harris and Robb ).…”

Section: Wendat Archaeology: a Brief Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Emerging out of—and in reaction to—these relations‐focused approaches (e.g., Barad ; Deleuze and Guattari ; Latour , ) are object‐oriented ontologies that follow Harman's () speculative realism (e.g., Olsen ; see also Fowler and Harris ; Harris and Cipolla ). These are beyond the scope of the present article.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Taming the Ontological Wolves: Learning from Iroquoian Effigy Objects

Cipolla

2019

American Anthropologist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently on the rise in archaeology, ontological approaches promise new ways of engaging with alterity of various kinds-different people, different times, different forms, even different worlds. This work promises to aid in critical reflections on the arbitrary nature of the Western gaze and to recognize and incorporate non-Western knowledge in new manners. There are, however, several challenges to address. First, as noted by several leading thinkers in this area, the present range of ontological approaches include contrasting theoretical underpinnings.Second, these approaches are rarely considered in relation to the practical challenges of specific archaeological cases, particularly contexts of settler colonialism in which practitioners are attuned to the potential colonial nature of their work. I divide ontologically engaged archaeologies into three related but distinct groups and use a small museum assemblage of seventeenth-century Wendat materials from Ontario to help think through these three theories. In comparing approaches, I outline their respective strengths, weaknesses, and points in need of further clarification. I conclude that the ontological turns offer new and valuable angles of articulation with archaeological materials but that archaeologists must adopt them cautiously if they are to avoid repeating or continuing some of the darkest parts of our (colonial) disciplinary history. [ontology, archaeology, new materialism, archaeological theory, effigies, colonialism, Iroquoian archaeology, Ontario] RESUMEN Actualmente se están desarrollando en la arqueología, aproximaciones ontológicas que prometen nuevas formas de comprometerse con la alteridad de varios tipos-personas diferentes, tiempos diferentes, formas diferentes, aun mundos diferentes. Este trabajo promete ayudar en reflexiones críticas sobre la naturaleza arbitraria de la mirada occidental y para reconocer e incorporar conocimiento no occidental en nuevas formas. Hay, sin embargo, varios retos para abordar. Primero, como señalado por varios pensadores destacados en estaárea, el rango actual de aproximaciones ontológicas incluye fundamentos teóricos contrastantes. Segundo, estas aproximaciones son consideradas raramente en relación con los retos prácticos de casos arqueológicos específicos, particularmente los contextos del colonialismo de pobladores en los cuales los profesionales están sintonizados con la naturaleza colonial potencial de su trabajo. Divido las arqueologías comprometidas ontológicamente en tres grupos relacionados pero distintos y uso un ensamblaje pequeño de museo de materiales de los hurones del siglo XVII de Ontario para ayudar a pensar a través de estas tres teorías. Comparando las aproximaciones, bosquejo sus debilidades, fortalezas respectivas, y puntos en necesidad de clarificación adicional. Concluyo que los cambios ontológicos ofreceń angulos de articulación nuevos y valiosos con materiales arqueológicos, pero que los arqueólogos los deben adoptar con cautela si van a evitar repetir o continuar algunas de las ...

show abstract

Section: Wendat Archaeology: a Brief Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ontology and Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Wendat Archaeology: a Brief Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Taming the Ontological Wolves: Learning from Iroquoian Effigy Objects

Cipolla

2019

American Anthropologist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Relentlessly driven by the ontological and material turns in the social sciences and humanities, in recent years a number of archaeologists have shifted from focusing on material culture, meaning and representation to a more direct engagement with things, materiality, materialisms and human-non-human relations (Alberti 2016;Domanska 2006;Gosden 2005;Hicks and Beaudry 2010;Fowler and Harris 2015;Harrison-Buck and Hendon 2018;Hodder 2012;Hodder and Lucas 2017;Jones 2015;Knappett and Malafouris 2008;Malafouris 2013;Meskell 2008;Olsen 2003;Olsen et al 2012;Robb 2015;Shanks 2007;Skibo and Schiffer 2008;Thomas 2007;Tilley 2007;Webmoor 2007;Webmoor and Witmore 2008;Witmore 2007). This variety of recent theoretical concepts can be seen as positively contributing to a diversity of approaches in archaeology (Harris and Cipolla 2017). There is, however, limited bridge building between deep theory and the tangible material evidence of archaeology itself.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assemblages of practice. A conceptual framework for exploring human–thing relations in archaeology

Antczak¹,

Beaudry²

2019

Arch. Dial.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we propose the conceptual framework of the assemblage of practice as an effective middlerange heuristic tool that bridges deep theory and the data available to archaeologists. Our framework foregrounds vibrant things as opposed to static objects, and sympathetically articulates the current concepts of entanglement, correspondence and assemblage. To us an assemblage of practice is a dynamic gathering of corresponding things entangled through situated daily and eventful human practice. Once reassembled by comprehensively and critically marshalling all the evidentiary lines available to archaeologists today, the assemblage of practice becomes a powerful analytical tool that illuminates changes, continuities and transformations in human-thing entanglements, and not only their impacts on local and short-term sociocultural developments, but also their repercussions on phenomena of much larger spatiotemporal scale. Our goal is to present archaeologists with a pluralistic, integrative and evolving middle-range framework that pays close attention to terminological precision and theoretical clarity and is conceptually accessible and widely applicable.

show abstract

Action Theory

Gardner¹

2018

The Encyclopedia of Archaeological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All archaeological interpretation employs some theory about the nature of the human beings who lived in the pasttheir choices, their intentions, and their “rationality,” as manifest in the actions which are the ultimate origin of the archaeological record. In traditional archaeologies, these theories tended to be “common sense” and implicit suppositions based upon the norms of western societies. New approaches began to appear in the mid‐twentieth century that emphasized the supposedly adaptive qualities of human behavior, but it is from the 1980s to the present that archaeologists have really begun to explore the range of different approaches to these fundamental issues that can be found across the social sciences and various branches of philosophy. This entry covers the major approaches to “action,” and the agency‐structure problem, in archaeology, examining also some of the theoretical traditions these draw upon, as well as neglected intellectual avenues with potential for future development.

show abstract

Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium

Cited by 128 publications

References 0 publications

Taming the Ontological Wolves: Learning from Iroquoian Effigy Objects

Taming the Ontological Wolves: Learning from Iroquoian Effigy Objects

Assemblages of practice. A conceptual framework for exploring human–thing relations in archaeology

Action Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About