Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:41:49.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The knots of narrative. Contemporaneity and its relation to history

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2015

Zoë Crossland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this wonderfully rich and thought-provoking article, Gavin Lucas exhorts us to write about archaeology in the mode of the contemporary. This is to attend to the shifting interplay between past, present and future, undertaken through a focus on the relations between objects, in contrast to the impoverished concern with succession and order that a notion of chronological contemporaneity imposes. His paper undertakes the useful task of disentangling concepts around time and contemporaneity, and raises a number of interesting questions. Here, I would like to discuss two of the most compelling contributions of Lucas's paper: the foregrounding of modes of persistence and of consociality, both of which I would like to explore by reflecting on my experiences of historical narrative and alternate temporalities in the history of highland Madagascar. The issue of persistence introduces the question of historical privilege – that is, how do some things persist while others fall to dust? And how is that persistence recognized and maintained? This same question of recognition (and misrecognition) is also at the heart of consociality; how are consociates acknowledged as contemporaneous, and what room is there for refusal?

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , June 2015 , pp. 15 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Bakhtin, M., 1981: The dialogic imagination. Four essays (tr. Emerson, C. and Holquist, M.), Austin.Google Scholar
Bloch, M., 1971: Placing the dead. Tombs, ancestral villages and kinship organization in Madagascar, London.Google Scholar
Bloch, M., 1977: The past and the present in the present, Man, new series, 12 (2), 278–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ø., 1999: Meanings in Madagascar. Cases of intercultural communication, Westport, CT.Google Scholar
Delivré, A, 1974: L’histoire des rois d’Imerina. Interprétation d’une tradition orale, Paris.Google Scholar
Delivré, A., 1979: Oral tradition and historical consciousness. The case of Imerina, in Kent, R. (ed.), Madagascar in history, Albany, CA, 123–47.Google Scholar
Derrida, J., 1994: Specters of Marx. The state of the debt, the work of mourning, and the new international (tr. Kamuf, P.), London.Google Scholar
Fabian, J., 1983: Time and the other. How anthropology makes its object. New York.Google Scholar
Joyce, R.A., 2002: Languages of archaeology. Dialogue, narrative, and writing, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koselleck, R., 2004: Futures past. On the semantic of historical time, New York.Google Scholar
Lucas, G., 2005: The archaeology of time, London.Google Scholar
Scarre, G., 2006: Can archaeology harm the dead?, in Scarre, C. and Scarre, G. (eds), The ethics of archaeology. Philosophical perspectives on archaeological practice, Cambridge, 181–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar