Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:46:34.433Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tangled between paradigms in the neo-baroque era

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2016

Felipe Criado-Boado
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The underlying notion for this article is that archaeology requires an amalgamation of humanities and science, and of narrative and scientific knowledge. The need for this fusion has arisen in a context in which contemporary society is experiencing major changes in epistemics, aesthetics and fashion; an increase in virtual experiences; and an economic crisis. I refer to this situation as the neo-baroque, a condition that is elusive and partially ambiguous. This social context (perhaps the final crisis of modernity), and the breakdown of this integration in pragmatic terms, call for a repoliticization of science.

Keywords

archaeological theorymodernitybaroquenarrativityarchaeological sciencesymmetrical archaeology
Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , December 2016 , pp. 152 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alonso-González, P., forthcoming: Between certainty and trust. Pseudoarchaeology and amateurism in the production of archaeological knowledge in Spain, Science as culture.Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 2014: The material constitution of humanness, Archaeological dialogues 21 (1), 65–74.Google Scholar
Beck, U., 1997: The reinvention of politics. Rethinking modernity in the global social order, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Brown, B., 2001: Thing theory, Critical inquiry 28 (1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, L.R., 2011: The democracy of objects, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Castells, M., 1989: The informational city. Information technology, economic restructuring, and the urban regional process, Oxford.Google Scholar
Criado-Boado, F., 2012: Arqueológicas. La razón perdida, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Criado-Boado, F., 2015: Archaeologies of space. An inquiry into modes of existence of xscapes, in Kristiansen, K., Šmejda, L. and Turek, J. (eds), Paradigm found. Archaeological theory – present, past and future, Oxford, 61–83.Google Scholar
Debord, G., 1967: La société du spectacle, Paris.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G., 1988: Le pli. Leibniz et le baroque, Paris.Google Scholar
Fuentes, A., and Wiessner, P., 2016: Reintegrating anthropology. From inside out, Current anthropology 57 (Supp. 13), S1–2.Google Scholar
González-Ruibal, A., 2013: Reclaiming archaeology, in González-Ruibal, A. (ed.), Reclaiming archaeology. Beyond the tropes of modernity, London, 1–29.Google Scholar
Henare, A., Holbraad, M. and Wastell, S., 2007: Introduction. Thinking through things, in Henare, A., Holbraad, M. and Wastell, S. (eds), Thinking through things, London, 5–14.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 2012: Entangled. An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things, Oxford.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 2011: Being alive. Essays on movement, knowledge and description, London.Google Scholar
Jullien, F., 1998: Un sage est sans idée, ou l'autre de la philosophie, Paris.Google Scholar
Jullien, F., 2010: De lo universal, de lo uniforme, de lo común y del diálogo entre culturas, Madrid.Google Scholar
Klein, N.M., 2004: The Vatican to Vegas. A history of special effects, New York.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K., 2014: Toward a new paradigm? The third science revolution and its possible consequences in archaeology, Current Swedish archaeology 22, 11–34.Google Scholar
Kurz, R., 2002: Razón sangrienta. 20 tesis contra la llamada Ilustración y los ‘valores occidentales’, German text available at www.krisis.org.Google Scholar
Larsson, S., 2014: The third science revolution and its possible consequences in archaeology. A personal reflection, Current Swedish archaeology 22, 53–56.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 2007: The recall of modernity. Anthropological approaches, Cultural studies review 13, 11–30.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 2013: An inquiry into modes of existence. An anthropology of the moderns, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lemmonnier, P., 2012: Mundane objects. Materiality and non-verbal communication, Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
Llobera, M., 2010: Archaeological visualization. Towards an archaeological information science, Journal of archaeological method and theory 18 (3), 193–223.Google Scholar
Malafouris, L., 2013: How things shape the mind. A theory of material engagement, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Millán-Pascual, R., 2015: Arqueología negativa. Las fronteras arqueológicas del presente, Complutum 26 (1), 49–69.Google Scholar
Mizoguchi, K., 2015: The future of archaeology, Antiquity 89 (343), 12–22.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., 2012b: Archaeology. The discipline of things, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Panofsky, E., 2013 (1924): Idea, Madrid.Google Scholar
Piketty, T. 2013: Le capital au XXIe siècle, Paris.Google Scholar
Prominski, M., and Koutroufinis, S., 2009: Folded landscapes. Deleuze's concept of the fold and its potential for contemporary landscape architecture, Landscape journal 28 (2), 151–65.Google Scholar
Rifkin, J., 2014: The zero marginal cost society. The Internet of things, the collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism, New York.Google Scholar
Rodrik, D. 2011: The globalization paradox. Democracy and the future of the world economy, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Shea, W.R., 2013: Galileo interviewed, Zurich.Google Scholar
Torralba, A., and Oliva, A., 2003: Statistics of natural images categories, Network. Computation in neural systems 14, 391–412.Google Scholar
Viveiros de Castro, E., 2012: Cosmological perspectivism in Amazonia and elsewhere, Manchester (HAU Masterclass Series 1).Google Scholar
Wiessner, P., 2016: The rift between science and humanism. What's data got to do with it?, Current anthropology 57 (Supp. 13), S154–66.Google Scholar
Zaera-Polo, A., 2008: The politics of the envelope. A political critique of materialism, Volume 17, 76–105.Google Scholar