反人文主义考古学的思考:对《格里尔 2023》的评论

IF 1.6 2区 历史学 0 ARCHAEOLOGY CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL Pub Date : 2024-02-19 DOI:10.1017/s0959774323000380
Lindsay M. Montgomery
{"title":"反人文主义考古学的思考:对《格里尔 2023》的评论","authors":"Lindsay M. Montgomery","doi":"10.1017/s0959774323000380","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In ‘Humanist Missteps’, Matthew Greer makes the pointed observation that non-anthropocentric frameworks, including symmetrical, object-oriented and posthuman feminist archaeologies, have primarily focused on deconstructing the human–non-human binary while failing to problematize humanist assumptions about who counts as Human. At the core of Greer's argument is the matter of citational practice: which social theorists are archaeologists referencing in their efforts to craft relational approaches to humans, things, animals and plants? In answering this question, the author points to a notable lack of Black Studies theorists, particularly the work of Sylvia Wynter, Zakkiyah Jackson and Tiffany King, in posthumanist archaeologies. While I agree with Greer's critiques, his essay stops short of explaining this citational silence. In this brief commentary, I suggest that this absence of Black Studies scholarship reflects the fact that the discipline of archaeology remains a ‘white public space’ (Brodkin <jats:italic>et al.</jats:italic>2011: 545) and maintains an artificial division between analysis and activism.","PeriodicalId":47164,"journal":{"name":"CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL","volume":"84 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reflections on a Counter-Humanist Archaeology: A Commentary on Greer 2023\",\"authors\":\"Lindsay M. Montgomery\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0959774323000380\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In ‘Humanist Missteps’, Matthew Greer makes the pointed observation that non-anthropocentric frameworks, including symmetrical, object-oriented and posthuman feminist archaeologies, have primarily focused on deconstructing the human–non-human binary while failing to problematize humanist assumptions about who counts as Human. At the core of Greer's argument is the matter of citational practice: which social theorists are archaeologists referencing in their efforts to craft relational approaches to humans, things, animals and plants? In answering this question, the author points to a notable lack of Black Studies theorists, particularly the work of Sylvia Wynter, Zakkiyah Jackson and Tiffany King, in posthumanist archaeologies. While I agree with Greer's critiques, his essay stops short of explaining this citational silence. In this brief commentary, I suggest that this absence of Black Studies scholarship reflects the fact that the discipline of archaeology remains a ‘white public space’ (Brodkin <jats:italic>et al.</jats:italic>2011: 545) and maintains an artificial division between analysis and activism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47164,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL\",\"volume\":\"84 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0959774323000380\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0959774323000380","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

马修-格里尔(Matthew Greer)在 "人文主义的失误 "一文中尖锐地指出,非人类中心主义框架,包括对称考古学、对象导向考古学和后人类女性主义考古学,主要侧重于解构人类-非人类的二元对立,却未能对人文主义关于谁算人类的假设提出质疑。Greer论述的核心是引用实践问题:考古学家在努力制定关于人类、事物、动物和植物的关系方法时,参考了哪些社会理论家的观点?在回答这个问题时,作者指出后人文主义考古学中明显缺乏黑人研究理论家,尤其是西尔维亚-温特(Sylvia Wynter)、扎基亚-杰克逊(Zakkiyah Jackson)和蒂芙尼-金(Tiffany King)的作品。虽然我同意格里尔的批评,但他的文章并没有对这种引用上的沉默做出解释。在这篇简短的评论中,我认为黑人研究学术研究的缺失反映出考古学学科仍然是一个 "白人公共空间"(Brodkin et al.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reflections on a Counter-Humanist Archaeology: A Commentary on Greer 2023
In ‘Humanist Missteps’, Matthew Greer makes the pointed observation that non-anthropocentric frameworks, including symmetrical, object-oriented and posthuman feminist archaeologies, have primarily focused on deconstructing the human–non-human binary while failing to problematize humanist assumptions about who counts as Human. At the core of Greer's argument is the matter of citational practice: which social theorists are archaeologists referencing in their efforts to craft relational approaches to humans, things, animals and plants? In answering this question, the author points to a notable lack of Black Studies theorists, particularly the work of Sylvia Wynter, Zakkiyah Jackson and Tiffany King, in posthumanist archaeologies. While I agree with Greer's critiques, his essay stops short of explaining this citational silence. In this brief commentary, I suggest that this absence of Black Studies scholarship reflects the fact that the discipline of archaeology remains a ‘white public space’ (Brodkin et al.2011: 545) and maintains an artificial division between analysis and activism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Archaeological Journal is the leading journal for cognitive and symbolic archaeology. It provides a forum for innovative, descriptive and theoretical archaeological research, paying particular attention to the role and development of human intellectual abilities and symbolic beliefs and practices. Specific topics covered in recent issues include: the use of cultural neurophenomenology for the understanding of Maya religious belief, agency and the individual, new approaches to rock art and shamanism, the significance of prehistoric monuments, ritual behaviour on Pacific Islands, and body metamorphosis in prehistoric boulder artworks. In addition to major articles and shorter notes, the Cambridge Archaeological Journal includes review features on significant recent books.
期刊最新文献
Food and Labour under Imperial Rule: Unravelling the Food Landscape of Transplanted Workers (mitmaqkuna) in the Inka Empire Neighbours of the Apsaros Fort. Local Tribes on the Black Sea Coast during the Principate Textiles and Staple Finance in the Near East and the Southern Levant Beyond Urban Hinterlands. Political Ecology, Urban Metabolism and Extended Urbanization in Medieval England The Maya Ajawtaak and Teotihuacan Hegemony c. 150–600 ce
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1