Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:39:43.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Posthuman Potentials: Considering Collaborative Indigenous Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2021

Craig N. Cipolla
Craig N. Cipolla*
Affiliation:
Royal Ontario Museum 100 Queen's Park TorontoONM5S 2C6Canada Email: craigc@rom.on.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay argues for the diversity and promise of posthuman approaches in archaeology by dispelling blanket critiques, by differentiating between distinct lines of post-anthropocentric thought and by pointing to parallels between Posthumanism and collaborative Indigenous archaeologies. It begins by arguing that symmetrical archaeology is but one part of the diverse body of thought labelled ‘posthuman’. Next, it explores broader posthuman engagements with political issues relevant for collaborative Indigenous archaeologies, particularly concerns regarding under-represented groups in the field. Finally, it identifies flat ontologies as key components of posthuman approaches, clarifying what this term means for different lines of post-anthropocentric thought and briefly considering how the concept of flatness compares with Indigenous metaphysics.

Type
Special Section: Debating Posthumanism in Archaeology
Information
Cambridge Archaeological Journal , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , August 2021 , pp. 509 - 514
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research

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

Alberti, B. & Marshall, Y., 2009. Animating archaeology: local theories and conceptually open-ended methodologies. Cambridge Archaeology Journal 19, 344–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barad, K., 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 2014. The material constitution of humanness. Archaeological Dialogues 21(1), 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 2016. The new antiquarianism? Antiquity 90(354), 1681–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 2017. Comment on ‘The symmetries and asymmetries of human-thing relations. A dialogue’. Archaeological Dialogues 24(2), 137–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhaskar, R., [1975]2008. A Realist Theory of Science. New York (NY): Routledge.Google Scholar
Bignall, S. & Braidotti, R., 2019. Posthuman systems, in Posthuman Ecologies: Complexity and process, eds Braidotti, R. & Bignall, S.. London: Rowman & Littlefield, 1–16.Google Scholar
Braidotti, R., 2018. A theoretical framework for the critical posthumanities. Theory, Culture & Society 36(6), 31–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, L.R., 2010. The Democracy of Objects. Ann Arbor (MI): Open Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Cipolla, C.N. & Quinn, J., 2016. Field school archaeology the Mohegan way: reflections on twenty years of community-based research and teaching. Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage 3(2), 118–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cipolla, C.N., Quinn, J. & Levy, J., 2019. Theory in collaborative Indigenous archaeology: insights from Mohegan. American Antiquity 84(1), 127–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, H. & Croucher, K., 2014. Assembling archaeological pedagogy. A theoretical framework for valuing pedagogy in archaeological interpretation and practice. Archaeological Dialogues 21(2), 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conneller, C., 2011. An Archaeology of Materials: Substantial transformations in early prehistoric Europe. New York (NY): Routledge.Google Scholar
Crellin, R.J., 2017. Changing assemblages: tracing vibrant matter in burial assemblages. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27(1), 111–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crellin, R.J., 2020. Change and Archaeology. New York (NY): Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crellin, R.J., Cipolla, C.N., Montgomery, L.M., Harris, O.J.T. & Moore, S.V., 2021. Archaeological Theory in Dialogue: Situating relationality, ontology, posthumanism, and Indigenous paradigms. New York (NY): Routledge.Google Scholar
DeLanda, M., 2002. Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
DeLanda, M., 2006. A New Philosophy of Society. Assemblage theory and social complexity. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
DeLanda, M., 2016. Assemblage Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
DeLanda, M. & Harman, G., 2017. The Rise of Realism. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F., 1987. A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis (MN): University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Deloria, V. Jr, [1979]2012. The Metaphysics of Modern Existence. Golden (CO): Fulcrum.Google Scholar
Ferrando, F., 2019. Posthumanist Philosophy. London: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, D., 1988. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14(3), 575–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, G., 2009. Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and metaphysics. Melbourne: re:press.Google Scholar
Harman, G., 2016. Immaterialism: Objects and social theory. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Harman, G., 2018. Object-Oriented Ontology: A new theory of everything. New York (NY): Penguin.Google Scholar
Harris, O.J.T., 2018. More than representation: multiscalar assemblages and the Deleuzian challenge to archaeology. History of Human Sciences 31(3), 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, O.J.T. & Cipolla, C.N., 2017. Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium: Introducing current perspectives. New York (NY): Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. & Lucas, G., 2017. The symmetries and asymmetries of human-thing relations. A dialogue. Archaeological Dialogues 24(2), 119–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, B., 2019. Assemblage Thought and Archaeology. New York (NY): Routledge.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lucas, G., 2012. Understanding the Archaeological Record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacCormack, P., 2020. The Ahuman Manifesto: Activism for the end of the Anthropocene. New York (NY): Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, C., 2019. Avatars, monsters, and machines: a cyborg archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology 22(3), 324–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., 2003. Material culture after text: re-membering things. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36(2), 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., 2010. In Defense of Things: Archaeology and the ontology of objects. Walnut Creek (CA): AltaMira.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., 2012. After interpretation: remembering archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology 20, 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., Shanks, M., Webmoor, T. & Witmore, C., 2012. Archaeology: The discipline of things. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.Google Scholar
Olsen, B. & Witmore, C., 2015. Archaeology, symmetry and the ontology of things: a response to the critics. Archaeological Dialogues 22(2), 187–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tallbear, K., 2014. Standing with and speaking as faith: a feminist-Indigenous approach to inquiry. Journal of Research Practice 10(2), Article N17.Google Scholar
Todd, Z., 2016. An Indigenous feminist's take on the ontological turn: ‘ontology’ is just another word for colonialism. Journal of Historical Sociology 29, 4–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, S., 2011. Contradictions of Archaeological Theory: Engaging critical realism and archaeological theory. New York (NY): Routledge.Google Scholar
Webmoor, T., 2007. What about ‘one more turn after the social’ in archaeological reasoning? Taking things seriously. World Archaeology 39(4), 563–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webmoor, T. & Witmore, C., 2008. Things are us! A commentary on human/thing relations under the banner of a ‘social’ archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review 41(1), 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C., 2007. Symmetrical archaeology: excerpts of a manifesto. World Archaeology 39(4), 546–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar