Pub Date : 2021-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203821000064
Nicolas Zorzin
In other words, capitalism is internal to the very structure and practice of archaeology. As part of the internally related dialectical whole, archaeology is capitalism, so working within our disciplinary boundaries means that our work can only perpetuate and reproduce those structures. This is essentially why I find the question whether archaeology is conceivable with the degrowth movement more than a little problematic. If neo-liberalism (growth, capitalism, etc.) no longer existed, neither would archaeology. And this leads me to my final point: that I think Zorzin has missed an opportunity to really contemplate what archaeology may look like in a world without capitalism (which is what degrowth is, after all). Since every aspect of archaeology is implicated in capitalist structures, archaeology would (hopefully) not exist as such in any form that we may recognize – the academy, CRM, NGOs, community organizations, etc. I do not think many of the ideas presented here are successful or satisfying, mainly because the framing is based on reified externally related entities, such as neo-liberalism and archaeology, that freeze complex dynamics and social relations. Rather than thinking about a ‘golden age’, in either the past or the future, that stems from facile either/ or framing, I find it more useful to think about the complexity of dialectical relations that both limit and enable action. Archaeology is capitalism but has always also been against capitalism. Archaeology has always served the nation state and thwarted it at the same time. Instead of seeing the solution in terms of a scheme of temporal stages, embracing the internal dialectical connectedness allows us to see that it is both at the same time. For me, the problem is not simply ‘growth’, but how to think about post-archaeological alternatives where we can participate in creating a different life, one that is not based on the logic of capitalism, one that subverts and transforms inequalities and oppression, striving for social justice and dignity for all humans, and our ability to realize the free conscious life activity that lies at the heart of our species-being.
{"title":"Reply to comments","authors":"Nicolas Zorzin","doi":"10.1017/S1380203821000064","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203821000064","url":null,"abstract":"In other words, capitalism is internal to the very structure and practice of archaeology. As part of the internally related dialectical whole, archaeology is capitalism, so working within our disciplinary boundaries means that our work can only perpetuate and reproduce those structures. This is essentially why I find the question whether archaeology is conceivable with the degrowth movement more than a little problematic. If neo-liberalism (growth, capitalism, etc.) no longer existed, neither would archaeology. And this leads me to my final point: that I think Zorzin has missed an opportunity to really contemplate what archaeology may look like in a world without capitalism (which is what degrowth is, after all). Since every aspect of archaeology is implicated in capitalist structures, archaeology would (hopefully) not exist as such in any form that we may recognize – the academy, CRM, NGOs, community organizations, etc. I do not think many of the ideas presented here are successful or satisfying, mainly because the framing is based on reified externally related entities, such as neo-liberalism and archaeology, that freeze complex dynamics and social relations. Rather than thinking about a ‘golden age’, in either the past or the future, that stems from facile either/ or framing, I find it more useful to think about the complexity of dialectical relations that both limit and enable action. Archaeology is capitalism but has always also been against capitalism. Archaeology has always served the nation state and thwarted it at the same time. Instead of seeing the solution in terms of a scheme of temporal stages, embracing the internal dialectical connectedness allows us to see that it is both at the same time. For me, the problem is not simply ‘growth’, but how to think about post-archaeological alternatives where we can participate in creating a different life, one that is not based on the logic of capitalism, one that subverts and transforms inequalities and oppression, striving for social justice and dignity for all humans, and our ability to realize the free conscious life activity that lies at the heart of our species-being.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"28 1","pages":"28 - 35"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203821000064","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46587051","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203821000088
Kelly Reed
Abstract Research on food has a long history in archaeology and anthropology, with many agreeing that we need to examine the food of complex societies in a more holistic way, through the various stages from production to disposal. Typically, this has occurred through the application of the concept of foodways, although this has a range of definitions and is generally only used in historical archaeological and anthropological research. By building on this important area of research this paper will explore the usefulness of applying a food-systems framework to understanding food in the past. Systems research is already well established in archaeology, sharing elements with approaches such as social-network analysis and complexity science. These theories have been used to address a broad array of questions about the relationships between actors, activities and outcomes for individuals and larger groups at a range of social scales. Thus food systems can help us to explore greater connections between food, human society and the environment via a combination of different archaeological evidence and comparative data.
{"title":"Food systems in archaeology. Examining production and consumption in the past","authors":"Kelly Reed","doi":"10.1017/S1380203821000088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203821000088","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Research on food has a long history in archaeology and anthropology, with many agreeing that we need to examine the food of complex societies in a more holistic way, through the various stages from production to disposal. Typically, this has occurred through the application of the concept of foodways, although this has a range of definitions and is generally only used in historical archaeological and anthropological research. By building on this important area of research this paper will explore the usefulness of applying a food-systems framework to understanding food in the past. Systems research is already well established in archaeology, sharing elements with approaches such as social-network analysis and complexity science. These theories have been used to address a broad array of questions about the relationships between actors, activities and outcomes for individuals and larger groups at a range of social scales. Thus food systems can help us to explore greater connections between food, human society and the environment via a combination of different archaeological evidence and comparative data.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"28 1","pages":"51 - 75"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203821000088","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45293126","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203821000039
G. Moshenska
Academia has been described as a cake-eating contest where the prize is more cake. This is generally taken as a comment on workloads, but the competitive brutality of the academic job market suggests a coda: the winner chokes on cake, but the losers starve. The neo-liberal university – I write from the British version – reproduces itself and grows through the overproduction of PhDs with minimal academic career prospects, ensuring feverish competition for grants and jobs, and promoting precarity, fear and conformity (Flexner 2020, 159). Meanwhile, as government subsidies for degree programmes evaporate, those same neo-liberal universities need to increase enrolments to grow, to compete and to survive. In archaeology, the resulting overproduction of bachelor’s degrees contributes to the oversupply of labour and the suppression of wages in professional archaeology. If there are no jobs, why not take out another loan and go back to university for a master’s degree? And if, on the other hand, student recruitment falls, the same merciless meatgrinder logic demands redundancies and programme closures. Those of us privileged enough to be employed in academic archaeology might prefer to focus on the benefits and pleasures of studying archaeology, rather than the more mercenary considerations of student loan debt versus graduate incomes. It pleases us to think of ourselves as educators or public servants, rather than as the purveyors of luxury goods to an increasingly elite clientele, with a faint sleazy whiff of the pyramid scheme about the whole enterprise. The degrowth movement in archaeology that Nicolas Zorzin has outlined (and see also Flexner 2020) is a fascinating exercise in imaginative thinking. Part of the totalizing cultural power of neoliberal capitalism is the difficulty of thinking outside or beyond its bounds. Degrowth is a powerful challenge to these logics, offering snapshot views of alternative worlds. On this basis it is interesting to consider what archaeological education, and higher education in particular, might look like in a degrowth economy. The first model we might consider is the more modest one: Zorzin’s proposal for professional archaeology transformed by the introduction of a basic minimum income (BMI), also known as universal basic income (UBI) (see, for example, Haagh 2019). The core principle of UBI is that
{"title":"Degrowth and archaeological learning beyond the neo-liberal university","authors":"G. Moshenska","doi":"10.1017/S1380203821000039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203821000039","url":null,"abstract":"Academia has been described as a cake-eating contest where the prize is more cake. This is generally taken as a comment on workloads, but the competitive brutality of the academic job market suggests a coda: the winner chokes on cake, but the losers starve. The neo-liberal university – I write from the British version – reproduces itself and grows through the overproduction of PhDs with minimal academic career prospects, ensuring feverish competition for grants and jobs, and promoting precarity, fear and conformity (Flexner 2020, 159). Meanwhile, as government subsidies for degree programmes evaporate, those same neo-liberal universities need to increase enrolments to grow, to compete and to survive. In archaeology, the resulting overproduction of bachelor’s degrees contributes to the oversupply of labour and the suppression of wages in professional archaeology. If there are no jobs, why not take out another loan and go back to university for a master’s degree? And if, on the other hand, student recruitment falls, the same merciless meatgrinder logic demands redundancies and programme closures. Those of us privileged enough to be employed in academic archaeology might prefer to focus on the benefits and pleasures of studying archaeology, rather than the more mercenary considerations of student loan debt versus graduate incomes. It pleases us to think of ourselves as educators or public servants, rather than as the purveyors of luxury goods to an increasingly elite clientele, with a faint sleazy whiff of the pyramid scheme about the whole enterprise. The degrowth movement in archaeology that Nicolas Zorzin has outlined (and see also Flexner 2020) is a fascinating exercise in imaginative thinking. Part of the totalizing cultural power of neoliberal capitalism is the difficulty of thinking outside or beyond its bounds. Degrowth is a powerful challenge to these logics, offering snapshot views of alternative worlds. On this basis it is interesting to consider what archaeological education, and higher education in particular, might look like in a degrowth economy. The first model we might consider is the more modest one: Zorzin’s proposal for professional archaeology transformed by the introduction of a basic minimum income (BMI), also known as universal basic income (UBI) (see, for example, Haagh 2019). The core principle of UBI is that","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"28 1","pages":"19 - 21"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203821000039","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45652082","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203821000040
Sadie Watson
Zorzin’s paper offers compelling discussion surrounding the various issues that face the practice of archaeology today. I would like to take some aspects of his paper and dive deeper into the implications for myself and my colleagues working within development-led archaeology in the UK and elsewhere. My own career has not been framed within a theoretical or academic sphere so my opinions about this topic will be accordingly pragmatic – although like many, I alternate between desiring a complete destruction of the existing structures within which I have been forced to operate and taking a more measured consideration of how to approach the revolutionizing of those current structures, which (currently anyway) seem intractable. My knowledge of degrowth as a concept has been expanded by Zorzin’s paper, which provides a coherent and relevant introduction to the subject. Ironically, as a post-doctoral researcher without a university account, I am not able to refer to the list of references in Flexner or Zorzin’s papers, so foundmyself on the back foot slightly, although entering fully into the competitive and expensive world of academic publishing is not an attractive proposition inmany ways, and like others I would prefer open access of everything, for everybody. First, I have to confess to some personal disquiet about the concept of degrowth when my own livelihood and capacity to care for my family (rent, food, school uniforms) have depended entirely on a salary from development-led archaeology and I am therefore an established participant in the neo-liberalism Zorzin describes. I was also a senior member of the field team described in Zorzin (2016b), although I did not work on the specific project he discusses in that paper. I have some issues with Zorzin’s (2016b) approach to participant observation, which was undertaken without informing some of the participants, and also with the publication of clearly identifiable photographs of the site team and project. The concluding remarks about sabotaging the project are unnecessarily provocative, in my opinion; this would merely increase pressure on the supervisory staff, which is hardly in the spirit of solidarity. I agree with most of the rest of the content, (particularly the idea that we have been instrumentalized by developers), bar the idea that early professional archaeology was somehow a ‘better environment’, given that it developed within a conservative class-based patriarchy. I should also confront the reality that, despite my efforts at activism (union activity, lobbying our professional body and other organizations), there have been few significant improvements in the living and working conditions of archaeologists over recent years and the profession of archaeology remains exclusionary and predominantly open only to those who have come from a white, abled, economically secure background. Here my own position as one of those woolly liberals who is wholly embedded in capitalist structures is cle
{"title":"Degrowth in development-led archaeology and opportunities for change. A comment on Zorzin","authors":"Sadie Watson","doi":"10.1017/S1380203821000040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203821000040","url":null,"abstract":"Zorzin’s paper offers compelling discussion surrounding the various issues that face the practice of archaeology today. I would like to take some aspects of his paper and dive deeper into the implications for myself and my colleagues working within development-led archaeology in the UK and elsewhere. My own career has not been framed within a theoretical or academic sphere so my opinions about this topic will be accordingly pragmatic – although like many, I alternate between desiring a complete destruction of the existing structures within which I have been forced to operate and taking a more measured consideration of how to approach the revolutionizing of those current structures, which (currently anyway) seem intractable. My knowledge of degrowth as a concept has been expanded by Zorzin’s paper, which provides a coherent and relevant introduction to the subject. Ironically, as a post-doctoral researcher without a university account, I am not able to refer to the list of references in Flexner or Zorzin’s papers, so foundmyself on the back foot slightly, although entering fully into the competitive and expensive world of academic publishing is not an attractive proposition inmany ways, and like others I would prefer open access of everything, for everybody. First, I have to confess to some personal disquiet about the concept of degrowth when my own livelihood and capacity to care for my family (rent, food, school uniforms) have depended entirely on a salary from development-led archaeology and I am therefore an established participant in the neo-liberalism Zorzin describes. I was also a senior member of the field team described in Zorzin (2016b), although I did not work on the specific project he discusses in that paper. I have some issues with Zorzin’s (2016b) approach to participant observation, which was undertaken without informing some of the participants, and also with the publication of clearly identifiable photographs of the site team and project. The concluding remarks about sabotaging the project are unnecessarily provocative, in my opinion; this would merely increase pressure on the supervisory staff, which is hardly in the spirit of solidarity. I agree with most of the rest of the content, (particularly the idea that we have been instrumentalized by developers), bar the idea that early professional archaeology was somehow a ‘better environment’, given that it developed within a conservative class-based patriarchy. I should also confront the reality that, despite my efforts at activism (union activity, lobbying our professional body and other organizations), there have been few significant improvements in the living and working conditions of archaeologists over recent years and the profession of archaeology remains exclusionary and predominantly open only to those who have come from a white, abled, economically secure background. Here my own position as one of those woolly liberals who is wholly embedded in capitalist structures is cle","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"28 1","pages":"22 - 25"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203821000040","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42519203","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203821000027
James Flexner
Acknowledgments. I would like to thank all the scholars who agreed to participate in this contribution by further opening the debate about the degrowth movement, and helped me to clarify further my own arguments through their pertinent comments and positively challenging questions; the Fondation maison des sciences de l’homme (FMSH) for its financial support through the Fernand Braudel–IFER Post-doctoral Fellowship COFUND, and the UMR 8215 trajectoires and its members, which helped in conducting fieldwork in France and the United Kingdom, and contributed greatly to the current reflection; and the patient and kind proofreaders Dr Lucy Watson and Dr Sophie Violet Moore.
{"title":"Archaeology, anarchism, decolonization, and degrowth through the lens of Frase’s four futures","authors":"James Flexner","doi":"10.1017/S1380203821000027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203821000027","url":null,"abstract":"Acknowledgments. I would like to thank all the scholars who agreed to participate in this contribution by further opening the debate about the degrowth movement, and helped me to clarify further my own arguments through their pertinent comments and positively challenging questions; the Fondation maison des sciences de l’homme (FMSH) for its financial support through the Fernand Braudel–IFER Post-doctoral Fellowship COFUND, and the UMR 8215 trajectoires and its members, which helped in conducting fieldwork in France and the United Kingdom, and contributed greatly to the current reflection; and the patient and kind proofreaders Dr Lucy Watson and Dr Sophie Violet Moore.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"28 1","pages":"16 - 19"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203821000027","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46314428","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S138020382100009X
Astrid J. Nyland
Abstract This article explores the concept of authenticity of rock, place and stone tools in the Mesolithic. It uses results from a recent pXRF analysis on a selection of greenstone adzes predominantly originating from a delimited area on the western coast of south Norway as its point of departure. The results show that, although the majority of the 80 analysed adzes were made of greenstone from one specific source, eight clearly stemmed from local outcrops away from this one source area. The quantitative geochemical data are not presented in detail. Instead, the focus is on the social significance of these stone objects and their sources as indicated by the results. I argue that the anomalies demonstrate an acknowledged social value placed on stone from a dedicated source area; they represent deliberate attempts to manipulate perception and thus replicate a specific social affinity. Emphasizing perception and appearance, I consider adzes of green stone as assemblages of knowledge, skill, place and social memory – as desirable objects that enhanced a feeling of belonging and social identity – and I question whether this means that people in the Mesolithic recognized and acknowledged something as authentic.
{"title":"Acknowledged authenticity. Or did the origin of rock matter in the Mesolithic?","authors":"Astrid J. Nyland","doi":"10.1017/S138020382100009X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S138020382100009X","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article explores the concept of authenticity of rock, place and stone tools in the Mesolithic. It uses results from a recent pXRF analysis on a selection of greenstone adzes predominantly originating from a delimited area on the western coast of south Norway as its point of departure. The results show that, although the majority of the 80 analysed adzes were made of greenstone from one specific source, eight clearly stemmed from local outcrops away from this one source area. The quantitative geochemical data are not presented in detail. Instead, the focus is on the social significance of these stone objects and their sources as indicated by the results. I argue that the anomalies demonstrate an acknowledged social value placed on stone from a dedicated source area; they represent deliberate attempts to manipulate perception and thus replicate a specific social affinity. Emphasizing perception and appearance, I consider adzes of green stone as assemblages of knowledge, skill, place and social memory – as desirable objects that enhanced a feeling of belonging and social identity – and I question whether this means that people in the Mesolithic recognized and acknowledged something as authentic.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"28 1","pages":"77 - 94"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S138020382100009X","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44665319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203820000252
L. Meskell
reproduction – even reproductions have a maker (Thompson 2018) – are also crucial details in discussions of technological (de)colonization. Stobiecka’s examination could benefit from a closer look at agency that comes from a deeper involvement with the artefact’s itineraries. A focus on itineraries considers that objects have ‘no real beginning other than where we enter them and no end since things and their extensions continue to move’ (Joyce and Gillespie 2015, 3). There is no doubt that the trajectory and influence of Palmyra extend historically far beyond the borders of Syria, but the carefully crafted circulation of a replica that claims to represent Syrian interests today must confront specific concerns with the ethics of representation in contemporary heritage studies. First, the destruction narrative that is represented in the reproduction of the arch is not representative of the widespread destruction of diverse cultural sites that took place across Syria during this rampage (Mulder 2016). Likewise, the representational form of the arch cites a very selective period for this monument, which includes being used as a mosque and a church at different moments in its life history (Mulder 2020). Second, the visible rejection of Syrian refugees across many European countries, contemporary with the free circulation and consumption of the replica, undermines efforts to construct a global discourse that addresses the human scale of the Syrian conflict (Cunliffe 2016; Thompson 2017). Third, the apparent applause that this replica has received across the world evokes the strong rejection of the reproduction of the Ishtar Gate in Babylon, Iraq, which was disassembled through excavation to be reassembled in Berlin in the 1930s. A scaled replica, built in Babylon by Saddam Hussein’s regime in the 1980s, has been used as a textbook example of heritage inauthenticity and politically motivated deceit. Destruction, and its presumed resolution through digital reproduction, continue to be politically motivated. Stobiecka’s article offers important debates that invite us to revisit what it means to ‘save heritage’ in the 21st century. Her discussions also act as a reminder that heritage debates that fall under a ‘heritage-at-risk’ rhetoric enable less critical examinations of the means and purposes of representation (Rico 2015). Therefore calling for decolonizing practices in heritage preservation must revolve around an exploration of the channels of authority and expertise that give shape to specific safeguarding narratives, rather than focus on repackaging preservation strategies under new codifications and techniques that result in the same colonizing process of heritagization nonetheless.
{"title":"Hijacking ISIS. Digital imperialism and salvage politics","authors":"L. Meskell","doi":"10.1017/S1380203820000252","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203820000252","url":null,"abstract":"reproduction – even reproductions have a maker (Thompson 2018) – are also crucial details in discussions of technological (de)colonization. Stobiecka’s examination could benefit from a closer look at agency that comes from a deeper involvement with the artefact’s itineraries. A focus on itineraries considers that objects have ‘no real beginning other than where we enter them and no end since things and their extensions continue to move’ (Joyce and Gillespie 2015, 3). There is no doubt that the trajectory and influence of Palmyra extend historically far beyond the borders of Syria, but the carefully crafted circulation of a replica that claims to represent Syrian interests today must confront specific concerns with the ethics of representation in contemporary heritage studies. First, the destruction narrative that is represented in the reproduction of the arch is not representative of the widespread destruction of diverse cultural sites that took place across Syria during this rampage (Mulder 2016). Likewise, the representational form of the arch cites a very selective period for this monument, which includes being used as a mosque and a church at different moments in its life history (Mulder 2020). Second, the visible rejection of Syrian refugees across many European countries, contemporary with the free circulation and consumption of the replica, undermines efforts to construct a global discourse that addresses the human scale of the Syrian conflict (Cunliffe 2016; Thompson 2017). Third, the apparent applause that this replica has received across the world evokes the strong rejection of the reproduction of the Ishtar Gate in Babylon, Iraq, which was disassembled through excavation to be reassembled in Berlin in the 1930s. A scaled replica, built in Babylon by Saddam Hussein’s regime in the 1980s, has been used as a textbook example of heritage inauthenticity and politically motivated deceit. Destruction, and its presumed resolution through digital reproduction, continue to be politically motivated. Stobiecka’s article offers important debates that invite us to revisit what it means to ‘save heritage’ in the 21st century. Her discussions also act as a reminder that heritage debates that fall under a ‘heritage-at-risk’ rhetoric enable less critical examinations of the means and purposes of representation (Rico 2015). Therefore calling for decolonizing practices in heritage preservation must revolve around an exploration of the channels of authority and expertise that give shape to specific safeguarding narratives, rather than focus on repackaging preservation strategies under new codifications and techniques that result in the same colonizing process of heritagization nonetheless.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"27 1","pages":"126 - 128"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203820000252","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41975794","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1017/s1380203820000227
M. Bell, D. Gronenborn
Martin Bell is Professor of Archaeological Science and current Head of the Archaeology Department at the University of Reading, UK. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and the Society of Antiquaries of London. He teaches geoarchaeology and coastal and maritime archaeology and has particular interests in experimental archaeology and the relationship between archaeology and nature conservation and sustainability. Over the last 20 years he has excavated many intertidal prehistoric sites in the Severn Estuary in south Wales. He is author of Late Quaternary environmental change (2005, with M.J.C. Walker), Prehistoric coastal communities. The Mesolithic in western Britain (2007), Prehistoric intertidal archaeology (2000, with A. Caseldine and H. Neumann), The Experimental Earthwork Project (1996, with P. Fowler and S. Hillson), Past and present soil erosion (1992, with J. Boardman) and four earlier archaeological monographs.
{"title":"List of contributors","authors":"M. Bell, D. Gronenborn","doi":"10.1017/s1380203820000227","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1380203820000227","url":null,"abstract":"Martin Bell is Professor of Archaeological Science and current Head of the Archaeology Department at the University of Reading, UK. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and the Society of Antiquaries of London. He teaches geoarchaeology and coastal and maritime archaeology and has particular interests in experimental archaeology and the relationship between archaeology and nature conservation and sustainability. Over the last 20 years he has excavated many intertidal prehistoric sites in the Severn Estuary in south Wales. He is author of Late Quaternary environmental change (2005, with M.J.C. Walker), Prehistoric coastal communities. The Mesolithic in western Britain (2007), Prehistoric intertidal archaeology (2000, with A. Caseldine and H. Neumann), The Experimental Earthwork Project (1996, with P. Fowler and S. Hillson), Past and present soil erosion (1992, with J. Boardman) and four earlier archaeological monographs.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"27 1","pages":"177 - 178"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/s1380203820000227","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43036689","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：