Promised lands and chosen peoples: the politics and poetics of archaeological narrative

Silberman, Neil Asher

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511558214.015

Cited by 42 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…I think it is fair to say that the main focus in archaeological reflections on narrative is metanarrative, master narrative, or ideology: how pre-existing themes, stories, and vantage points are imposed on the evidence or how archaeological remains are used to create 8 contemporary meanings (Schrire 1980, Meskell 1995, Silberman 1995 to at least a degree of satire in which, ultimately, the topic itself ('origins'of agriculture) is undermined. However, the more recent the work, the more difficult it is to classify according to White's typology, and in most works elements of multiple modes of emplotment are identifiable (Rudebeck 2000, p. 279; also, pp.…”

Section: The Analysis Of Archaeological Narrativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I think it is fair to say that the main focus in archaeological reflections on narrative is metanarrative, master narrative, or ideology: how pre-existing themes, stories, and vantage points are imposed on the evidence or how archaeological remains are used to create 8 contemporary meanings (Schrire 1980, Meskell 1995, Silberman 1995, Abu El-Haj 2001, Bernbeck 2005, Lull et al 2011, Sterling 2011, Wurst and Novinge 2011). An important goal of such work is to expose and undermine the ideological underpinnings of archaeological narratives by questioning the authority of the archaeologist, fostering contributions from multiple voices, and promoting dialogues that include voices from outside the discipline (e.g., Solli 1996, Pluciennick 1999, R. Joyce with Guyer and M. , Hodder 2003, Atalay 2008, Johnson 2008.…”

Section: The Analysis Of Archaeological Narrativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is some work, inspired by historical and literary theories, on the structure of archaeological narratives, including specific attention to emplotment (Terrell 1990, Landau 1991, Rudebeck 1995, Pluciennick 1999, Ballard 2003. Philosophers of archaeology have addressed such issues as the nature of bridging arguments, the status of evidence in relation to theory, the empirical adequacy of interpretive statements, and strategies for promoting the ability of data to constrain theories (Kosso 2001, Wylie 2002), but they have given less attention to archaeological writing in general or narrative in particular.I think it is fair to say that the main focus in archaeological reflections on narrative is metanarrative, master narrative, or ideology: how pre-existing themes, stories, and vantage points are imposed on the evidence or how archaeological remains are used to create 8 contemporary meanings (Schrire 1980, Meskell 1995, Silberman 1995 to at least a degree of satire in which, ultimately, the topic itself ('origins'of agriculture) is undermined. However, the more recent the work, the more difficult it is to classify according to White's typology, and in most works elements of multiple modes of emplotment are identifiable (Rudebeck 2000, p. 279; also, pp.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Emplotment as Epic in Archaeological Writing: The Site Monograph as Narrative

Lesure

2015

Norwegian Archaeological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

) sought to understand the 'fictions' of historical narratives -that is, aspects of historical writing that are imposed on past events by the form of historians' narrative discourse. In Metahistory (1973), his magnum opus, he was particularly interested in a set of four tropes that provide alternative ways of imbuing past events with meaning (metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony) and in the generic story structures or modes of emplotment that often correspond to those (romance, tragedy, comedy, and satire). White's critique of historical narrative, although by no means generally accepted among historians, continues to be a touchstone for debate about the discipline and its discursive product (Ankersmit, Domanska, and Kellner 2009, Herman 2011, Doran 2013, Wilson 2014.The continued relevance of White's work to debates about historical writing makes it a convenient point of departure for thinking about the corresponding 'fictions' of archaeological narrative. The most immediate problem that such a plan encounters is that White's work has had relatively little impact in archaeology, even in the expanding critical literature on archaeological narrative. Analyses of archaeological storytelling, in other words, have not found White's four modes of emplotment particularly useful. One might conclude that White was wrong, or that his framework simply doesn't apply to archaeology. A more interesting question to ask is whether archaeological narratives are somehow different from their historical counterparts. This paper argues that White's framework is a helpful point of reference for thinking about the nature of archaeological narrative and the disciplinary identity of archaeology. It proves useful to identify a fifth mode of emplotment beyond the Whitean four. At the most general 2 level, archaeological writings are emplotted as epic rather than as romance, tragedy, comedy, or satire. Considering archaeology to be emplotted as epic leads to an understanding of archaeological narratives as multilayered, multi-authored, and not necessarily confined to a single text. Archaeological Writings Contrasted with Those of HistoriansArchaeology and history share the general goal of telling (true) stories of the human past and making sense of (explaining, interpreting) those stories. I consider archaeological writing to be fundamentally narrative in its basic orientation, a claim that is debatable but which seems readily defendable. The fundamental importance of cultural history, for example, is recognized across a wide spectrum of theoretical perspectives (e.g., Tilley 1996, Morris 2000, Pauketat 2001, Shennan 2002. Following Pluciennik (1999, p. 654) and Rudebeck (2000, pp. 13-14), I define a narrative as referring to a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end. Narratives thus recount an ordered series of events and reach closure. The structure of beginning, middle, and end is provided by plot, which can be understood as the logic that connects the diverse elements of a story (Ricoeur 1984, pp. 40-41, 64-68). (Broader de...

show abstract

Section: The Analysis Of Archaeological Narrativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I think it is fair to say that the main focus in archaeological reflections on narrative is metanarrative, master narrative, or ideology: how pre-existing themes, stories, and vantage points are imposed on the evidence or how archaeological remains are used to create 8 contemporary meanings (Schrire 1980, Meskell 1995, Silberman 1995, Abu El-Haj 2001, Bernbeck 2005, Lull et al 2011, Sterling 2011, Wurst and Novinge 2011). An important goal of such work is to expose and undermine the ideological underpinnings of archaeological narratives by questioning the authority of the archaeologist, fostering contributions from multiple voices, and promoting dialogues that include voices from outside the discipline (e.g., Solli 1996, Pluciennick 1999, R. Joyce with Guyer and M. , Hodder 2003, Atalay 2008, Johnson 2008.…”

Section: The Analysis Of Archaeological Narrativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Emplotment as Epic in Archaeological Writing: The Site Monograph as Narrative

Lesure

2015

Norwegian Archaeological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The relevance of the discipline may be tested further in emerging nation-states, where official guardians of the sacred traditional past attempt either to suppress archaeology, or conversely, with their political allies, to use archaeological monuments 'to reinforce their own preeminence'. 30 These points are now explored with reference to case studies in a variety of political situations where archaeology has been appealed to or deemed irrelevant (respectively).…”

Section: Politics Conflict and The Foundations Of Archaeological Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the Truth Down There?: Cultural Heritage Conflict and the Politics of Archaeological Authority

Barber

2006

Public History Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The selective pressures and processes of cultural heritage management effectively disinherit some interest groups. Where this occurs in the context of postcolonial or nationalist conflict, the material archaeological record may be referenced to support or reject particular views. The disciplinary assumptions behind the archaeological evidence so produced are not usually contested in judicial contexts. A review of archaeology’s theoretical foundations suggests that this naivety itself may be problematic. A descriptive culture history approach dominated archaeology over the first half of the twentieth century with a strong political appeal to nationalist politics. Subsequently archaeology became concerned with processual explanation and the scientific identification of universal laws of culture, consistent with postwar technological optimism and conformity. A postprocessual archaeology movement from the 1970s has promoted relativism and challenged the singular authority of scientific explanation. Archaeologists caught within this debate disagree over the use of the archaeological record in situations of political conflict. Furthermore, the use of archaeology in the sectarian debate over the Ayodhya birthplace of Rama suggests that the material record of the past can become highly politicized and seemingly irresolvable. Archaeological research is also subject to other blatant and subtle political pressures throughout the world, affecting the nature and interpretation of the record. A system that privileges archaeological information values may be irrelevant also to communities who value and manage their ancestral heritage for customary purposes. Collectively this review of theory and applied knowledge suggests that it is unrealistic to expect that archaeology can authoritatively resolve strident claims and debates about the past. Instead, an important contemporary contribution of archaeology may be its potential to document cultural and historical contradictions and inclusions for the consideration of contemporary groups in conflict.

show abstract

“…In these cases, the archaeological research, language of publication and management, and conservation of sites are influenced by different interests of these ethnic groups, such as ideas of nationalism and cultural racism. In other cases, the present is linked to a particular past or 'golden age' and emotional power is invested in archaeological sites considered as symbols of national pride, such as Masada in Israel or the classical cities like Paphos, Kition and Ammathus in Cyprus (Silberman 1995). In South America the cases of Tiawanaku in Bolivia or Machu Pichu in Peru´are also examples of the current use of archaeological sites as symbols of national pride and as material derivatives of a glorious past (see, for example, Mamani Condori 1996;Millones 2004;Angelo 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Race and racism in South American archaeology

Curtoni

Politis

2006

World Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article addresses the issue of race and racism in the archaeology of South America taking into account contemporary contributions in order to analyse and discuss the subtle functioning of racist thinking and ideas. It also provides a theoretical framework of departure for deconstructing and interpreting race and racism as social and cultural phenomena trying to elucidate the powerful effects implied by racist feelings. In a more general sense, this paper attempts to show that race and racism are still vivid in many social and cultural fields -including scientific and academic ones, functioning sometimes as a powerfully rooted belief.

show abstract

Promised lands and chosen peoples: the politics and poetics of archaeological narrative

Cited by 42 publications

References 0 publications

Emplotment as Epic in Archaeological Writing: The Site Monograph as Narrative

Emplotment as Epic in Archaeological Writing: The Site Monograph as Narrative

Is the Truth Down There?: Cultural Heritage Conflict and the Politics of Archaeological Authority

Race and racism in South American archaeology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About