{"title":"论殖民主义与欧洲中石器时代","authors":"N. Tiwari","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2023.2203133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The influence of colonial legacy on the scholarly work of the European Mesolithic has been represented in this paper by Elliot and Warren. Their take on this subject within the myriad of Decolonisation thought is wellresearched. They entangle the histories of colonial subjugation in the European Mesolithic by carefully examining the fundamentalswhy, how, and who (suggested by Graeme Warren in a discussion). This train of thought helps us understand why decolonisation is necessary, how it has and does affect the current scholarship on Mesolithic, and whom it affects. Elliot and Warren dive into the previously unknown deep waters of Mesolithic archaeology in the European scenario and weigh the consequences of the colonial thought process in Mesolithic archaeology globally. The present paper by the authors is an outcome of the long ongoing debates within the broader community of hunter-gatherer studies. This includes the scholars working with the indigenous communities and the archaeologists working in Mesolithic archaeology. As explained in the paper, specific dialogue on ‘Decolonising the Mesolithic’ began with the workshop on this topic that the authors organised in May of 2021. Before understanding the use of the term ‘Mesolithic culture’ worldwide, the necessity to explain and unhinge the European scenario is somehow the spine of this whole project. The deep-rooted use of this term has to be questioned, and Elliot and Warren, in this paper, rightly target such a sensitive issue with factual information. The term Mesolithic is frequently used loosely and globally and is attached to the tool typemicroliths, which were produced largely from Late Pleistocene to the Late Holocene period. The occurrence and production of this tool type are spatiotemporally varied globally. However, the nomenclature denoted to this phasei.e. Mesolithicis used and applied in the countries under colonial rule. Elliot and Warren pointed out the origin of this term, its definition, and its apt use in Northern Europe, and they also state that this term is by far not inclusive for the whole of the European continent. Beginning with the basis of this research, the authors start by explaining decolonisation and whether it impacts our daily lives in academic research and for them as educators. Looking at decolonisation through a macro lens, they try to understand it in university-level teaching by following Pimblott’s (2020) and Bruchac’s (2014). They point out the universities’ Eurocentric approach towards assessing indigenous populations’ cultures and traditions. Such repertoire must be dismantled to listen to","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Exposition on Colonialism and the European Mesolithic by Benjamin Elliott and Graeme Warren\",\"authors\":\"N. Tiwari\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00293652.2023.2203133\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The influence of colonial legacy on the scholarly work of the European Mesolithic has been represented in this paper by Elliot and Warren. Their take on this subject within the myriad of Decolonisation thought is wellresearched. They entangle the histories of colonial subjugation in the European Mesolithic by carefully examining the fundamentalswhy, how, and who (suggested by Graeme Warren in a discussion). This train of thought helps us understand why decolonisation is necessary, how it has and does affect the current scholarship on Mesolithic, and whom it affects. Elliot and Warren dive into the previously unknown deep waters of Mesolithic archaeology in the European scenario and weigh the consequences of the colonial thought process in Mesolithic archaeology globally. The present paper by the authors is an outcome of the long ongoing debates within the broader community of hunter-gatherer studies. This includes the scholars working with the indigenous communities and the archaeologists working in Mesolithic archaeology. As explained in the paper, specific dialogue on ‘Decolonising the Mesolithic’ began with the workshop on this topic that the authors organised in May of 2021. Before understanding the use of the term ‘Mesolithic culture’ worldwide, the necessity to explain and unhinge the European scenario is somehow the spine of this whole project. The deep-rooted use of this term has to be questioned, and Elliot and Warren, in this paper, rightly target such a sensitive issue with factual information. The term Mesolithic is frequently used loosely and globally and is attached to the tool typemicroliths, which were produced largely from Late Pleistocene to the Late Holocene period. The occurrence and production of this tool type are spatiotemporally varied globally. However, the nomenclature denoted to this phasei.e. Mesolithicis used and applied in the countries under colonial rule. Elliot and Warren pointed out the origin of this term, its definition, and its apt use in Northern Europe, and they also state that this term is by far not inclusive for the whole of the European continent. Beginning with the basis of this research, the authors start by explaining decolonisation and whether it impacts our daily lives in academic research and for them as educators. Looking at decolonisation through a macro lens, they try to understand it in university-level teaching by following Pimblott’s (2020) and Bruchac’s (2014). They point out the universities’ Eurocentric approach towards assessing indigenous populations’ cultures and traditions. Such repertoire must be dismantled to listen to\",\"PeriodicalId\":45030,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Norwegian Archaeological Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Norwegian Archaeological Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2023.2203133\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2023.2203133","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
An Exposition on Colonialism and the European Mesolithic by Benjamin Elliott and Graeme Warren
The influence of colonial legacy on the scholarly work of the European Mesolithic has been represented in this paper by Elliot and Warren. Their take on this subject within the myriad of Decolonisation thought is wellresearched. They entangle the histories of colonial subjugation in the European Mesolithic by carefully examining the fundamentalswhy, how, and who (suggested by Graeme Warren in a discussion). This train of thought helps us understand why decolonisation is necessary, how it has and does affect the current scholarship on Mesolithic, and whom it affects. Elliot and Warren dive into the previously unknown deep waters of Mesolithic archaeology in the European scenario and weigh the consequences of the colonial thought process in Mesolithic archaeology globally. The present paper by the authors is an outcome of the long ongoing debates within the broader community of hunter-gatherer studies. This includes the scholars working with the indigenous communities and the archaeologists working in Mesolithic archaeology. As explained in the paper, specific dialogue on ‘Decolonising the Mesolithic’ began with the workshop on this topic that the authors organised in May of 2021. Before understanding the use of the term ‘Mesolithic culture’ worldwide, the necessity to explain and unhinge the European scenario is somehow the spine of this whole project. The deep-rooted use of this term has to be questioned, and Elliot and Warren, in this paper, rightly target such a sensitive issue with factual information. The term Mesolithic is frequently used loosely and globally and is attached to the tool typemicroliths, which were produced largely from Late Pleistocene to the Late Holocene period. The occurrence and production of this tool type are spatiotemporally varied globally. However, the nomenclature denoted to this phasei.e. Mesolithicis used and applied in the countries under colonial rule. Elliot and Warren pointed out the origin of this term, its definition, and its apt use in Northern Europe, and they also state that this term is by far not inclusive for the whole of the European continent. Beginning with the basis of this research, the authors start by explaining decolonisation and whether it impacts our daily lives in academic research and for them as educators. Looking at decolonisation through a macro lens, they try to understand it in university-level teaching by following Pimblott’s (2020) and Bruchac’s (2014). They point out the universities’ Eurocentric approach towards assessing indigenous populations’ cultures and traditions. Such repertoire must be dismantled to listen to
期刊介绍:
Norwegian Archaeological Review published since 1968, aims to be an interface between archaeological research in the Nordic countries and global archaeological trends, a meeting ground for current discussion of theoretical and methodical problems on an international scientific level. The main focus is on the European area, but discussions based upon results from other parts of the world are also welcomed. The comments of specialists, along with the author"s reply, are given as an addendum to selected articles. The Journal is also receptive to uninvited opinions and comments on a wider scope of archaeological themes, e.g. articles in Norwegian Archaeological Review or other journals, monographies, conferences.