Alfredo González-Ruibal
Independent Researcher, Archaeology, Faculty Member
- Critical Theory, Material Culture Studies, African Studies, Postcolonial Theory, Ethnoarchaeology, Modernity, and 14 moreConflict Archaeology, Alain Badiou, Giorgio Agamben, and Slavoj Zizek, Ethiopian Studies, Archaeology of the Contemporary Past, Archaeology of the Spanish Civil War, Archaeology of Colonialisms, Totalitarianism, African Archaeology, Resistance (Social), Historical Archaeology, Decolonial Thought, Spanish Civil War, African History, and Archaeology of Colonialismedit
- My research focuses on the archaeology of the contemporary past. In particular, I work on the darker side of the 20th... moreMy research focuses on the archaeology of the contemporary past. In particular, I work on the darker side of the 20th and 21st century: war, colonialism, dictatorship and capitalism. I have been coordinating a project on the archaeology of the Spanish Civil War and the Franco dictatorship (1936-1975) since 2006.
I am also interested in the material strategies deployed by communities who still resist modernity, globalization and the state. In relation to this, I have conducted research among living nonmodern societies in western Ethiopia (2001-2010) and Brazil (2005-2008). My present archaeological projects in the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia and Somaliland) try to bridge the divide between prehistoric, historical and contemporary archaeology and explore multiple ontologies and temporalities in the long term.
I do not work on cultural heritage if I can help it and I am highly skilled in not getting funding.edit
First chapter of "The Archaeology of the Spanish Civil War". The book offers the first comprehensive account of this conflict from an archaeological perspective, providing an alternative narrative on one of the most important conflicts of... more
First chapter of "The Archaeology of the Spanish Civil War". The book offers the first comprehensive account of this conflict from an archaeological perspective, providing an alternative narrative on one of the most important conflicts of the twentieth century, widely seen as a prelude to the Second World War.
Between 1936 and 1939, totalitarianism and democracy, fascism and revolution clashed in Spain, while the latest military technologies were being tested, including strategic bombing and combined arms warfare, and violence against civilians became widespread. Archaeology, however, complicates the picture as it brings forgotten actors into play: obsolete weapons, vernacular architecture, ancient structures (from Iron Age hillforts to sheepfolds), peasant traditions, and makeshift arms. By looking at these things, another story of the war unfolds, one that pays more attention to intimate experiences and anonymous individuals. Archaeology also helps to clarify battles, which were often chaotic and only partially documented, and to understand better the patterns of political violence, whose effects were literally buried for over 70 years. The narrative starts with the coup against the Second Spanish Republic on 18 July 1936, follows the massacres and battles that marked the path of the war, and ends in the early 1950s, when the last forced labor camps were closed and the anti-Francoist guerrillas suppressed.
The book draws on 20 years of research to bring together perspectives from battlefield archaeology, archaeologies of internment, and forensics. It will be of interest to anybody interested in historical and contemporary archaeology, human rights violations, modern military history, and negative heritage
Between 1936 and 1939, totalitarianism and democracy, fascism and revolution clashed in Spain, while the latest military technologies were being tested, including strategic bombing and combined arms warfare, and violence against civilians became widespread. Archaeology, however, complicates the picture as it brings forgotten actors into play: obsolete weapons, vernacular architecture, ancient structures (from Iron Age hillforts to sheepfolds), peasant traditions, and makeshift arms. By looking at these things, another story of the war unfolds, one that pays more attention to intimate experiences and anonymous individuals. Archaeology also helps to clarify battles, which were often chaotic and only partially documented, and to understand better the patterns of political violence, whose effects were literally buried for over 70 years. The narrative starts with the coup against the Second Spanish Republic on 18 July 1936, follows the massacres and battles that marked the path of the war, and ends in the early 1950s, when the last forced labor camps were closed and the anti-Francoist guerrillas suppressed.
The book draws on 20 years of research to bring together perspectives from battlefield archaeology, archaeologies of internment, and forensics. It will be of interest to anybody interested in historical and contemporary archaeology, human rights violations, modern military history, and negative heritage
Research Interests:
An Archaeology of the Contemporary Era approaches the contemporary age, between the late nineteenth and twenty-first centuries, as an archaeological period defined by specific material processes. It reflects on the theory and practice of... more
An Archaeology of the Contemporary Era approaches the contemporary age, between the late nineteenth and twenty-first centuries, as an archaeological period defined by specific material processes. It reflects on the theory and practice of the archaeology of the contemporary past from epistemological, political, ethical and aesthetic viewpoints, and characterises the present based on archaeological traces from the spatial, temporal and material excesses that define it. The materiality of our era, the book argues, and particularly its ruins and rubbish, reveals something profound, original and disturbing about humanity. This is the first attempt at describing the contemporary era from an archaeological point of view. Global in scope, the book brings together case studies from every continent and considers sources from peripheral and rarely considered traditions, meanwhile engaging in an interdisciplinary dialogue with philosophy, anthropology, history and geography. The document includes the table of contents and Chapter 1.
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Cultural History, African Studies, Archaeology, Indigenous Studies, Historical Archaeology, and 27 moreEthnoarchaeology, Pottery (Archaeology), Material Culture Studies, Ethiopian Studies, Anthropology of the Body, African History, History and Memory, Anarchism, Indigenous Politics, History of Slavery, Egalitarianism, Resistance (Social), Social and Collective Memory, Archaeology of States, Collective Memory, Domestic Space, Materiality (Anthropology), Indigenous Peoples, Ethiopia, Memory and materiality, Sudan, Archaeological ethnography, African Archaeology, Pierre Clastres, South Sudan, Borders and Borderlands, and Archaeology of Colonialism
An introduction to archaeology (in Spanish), with particular emphasis on current research themes and public archaeology. The document includes the table of contents, introduction and Chapter 1. Una introducción a la arqueología (en... more
An introduction to archaeology (in Spanish), with particular emphasis on current research themes and public archaeology. The document includes the table of contents, introduction and Chapter 1.
Una introducción a la arqueología (en español) que pone el énfasis en los temas de investigación recientes y en la arqueología pública. El documento incluye el índice, la introducción y el primer capítulo.
Una introducción a la arqueología (en español) que pone el énfasis en los temas de investigación recientes y en la arqueología pública. El documento incluye el índice, la introducción y el primer capítulo.
Research Interests:
The first archaeological account of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and its aftermath. “Volver a las trincheras” propone una visión radicalmente distinta de la Guerra Civil española y la inmediata posguerra. No porque llegue a... more
The first archaeological account of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and its aftermath.
“Volver a las trincheras” propone una visión radicalmente distinta de la Guerra Civil española y la inmediata posguerra. No porque llegue a conclusiones necesariamente diferentes a las de los historiadores, sino porque utiliza una materia prima inédita: latas, casquillos, trincheras y fosas. Estos son los documentos con los que se construyen las historias que aquí se narran. Unos documentos que no hablan solo de batallas y asesinatos, sino también de experiencias cotidianas: de terror, esperanza, amor y memoria. Se trata de las vidas (y muertes) de personas anónimas enfrentadas a circunstancias excepcionales. Este libro cuenta una historia de la guerra que nos llevará desde las trincheras de la Ciudad Universitaria en Madrid, en noviembre de 1936, hasta el destacamento penal de Bustarviejo, cerrado en 1952, muchos años después de que se escuchara el último tiro en los frentes.
“Volver a las trincheras” propone una visión radicalmente distinta de la Guerra Civil española y la inmediata posguerra. No porque llegue a conclusiones necesariamente diferentes a las de los historiadores, sino porque utiliza una materia prima inédita: latas, casquillos, trincheras y fosas. Estos son los documentos con los que se construyen las historias que aquí se narran. Unos documentos que no hablan solo de batallas y asesinatos, sino también de experiencias cotidianas: de terror, esperanza, amor y memoria. Se trata de las vidas (y muertes) de personas anónimas enfrentadas a circunstancias excepcionales. Este libro cuenta una historia de la guerra que nos llevará desde las trincheras de la Ciudad Universitaria en Madrid, en noviembre de 1936, hasta el destacamento penal de Bustarviejo, cerrado en 1952, muchos años después de que se escuchara el último tiro en los frentes.
A short introduction to ethnoarchaeology with examples from all over the world. In Spanish.
Research Interests:
This volume examines the distinctive and highly problematic ethical questions surrounding conflict archaeology. By bringing together sophisticated analyses and pertinent case studies from around the world it aims to address the problems... more
This volume examines the distinctive and highly problematic ethical questions surrounding conflict archaeology. By bringing together sophisticated analyses and pertinent case studies from around the world it aims to address the problems facing archaeologists working in areas of violent conflict, past and present. Of all the contentious issues within archaeology and heritage, the study of conflict and work within conflict zones are undoubtedly the most highly charged and hotly debated, both within and outside the discipline. Ranging across the conflict zones of the world past and present, this book attempts to raise the level of these often fractious debates by locating them within ethical frameworks. The issues and debates in this book range across a range of ethical models, including deontological, teleological and virtue ethics. The chapters address real-world ethical conundrums that confront archaeologists in a diversity of countries, including Israel/Palestine, Iran, Uruguay, Argentina, Rwanda, Germany and Spain. They all have in common recent, traumatic experiences of war and dictatorship. The chapters provide carefully argued, thought-provoking analyses and examples that will be of real practical use to archaeologists in formulating and addressing ethical dilemmas in a confident and constructive manner.
Research Interests:
Archaeology has been an important source of metaphors for some of the key intellectuals of the 20th century: Sigmund Freud, Walter Benjamin, Alois Riegl and Michel Foucault, amongst many others. However, this power has also turned against... more
Archaeology has been an important source of metaphors for some of the key intellectuals of the 20th century: Sigmund Freud, Walter Benjamin, Alois Riegl and Michel Foucault, amongst many others. However, this power has also turned against archaeology, because the discipline has been dealt with perfunctorily as a mere provider of metaphors that other intellectuals have exploited. Scholars from different fields continue to explore areas in which archaeologists have been working for over two centuries, with little or no reference to the discipline. It seems that excavation, stratigraphy or ruins only become important at a trans-disciplinary level when people from outside archaeology pay attention to them and somehow dematerialize them. Meanwhile, archaeologists have been usually more interested in borrowing theories from other fields, rather than in developing the theoretical potential of the same concepts that other thinkers find so useful.
The time is ripe for archaeologists to address a wider audience and engage in theoretical debates from a position of equality, not of subalternity. Reclaiming Archaeology explores how archaeology can be useful to rethink modernity’s big issues, and more specifically late modernity (broadly understood as the 20th and 21st centuries). The book contains a series of original essays, not necessarily following the conventional academic rules of archaeological writing or thinking, allowing rhetoric to have its place in disclosing the archaeological. In each of the four sections that constitute this book (method, time, heritage and materiality), the contributors deal with different archaeological tropes, such as excavation, surface/depth, genealogy, ruins, fragments, repressed memories and traces. They criticize their modernist implications and rework them in creative ways, in order to show the power of archaeology not just to understand the past, but also the present.
Reclaiming Archaeology includes essays from a diverse array of archaeologists who have dealt in one way or another with modernity, including scholars from non-Anglophone countries who have approached the issue in original ways during recent years, as well as contributors from other fields who engage in a creative dialogue with archaeology and the work of archaeologists.
The time is ripe for archaeologists to address a wider audience and engage in theoretical debates from a position of equality, not of subalternity. Reclaiming Archaeology explores how archaeology can be useful to rethink modernity’s big issues, and more specifically late modernity (broadly understood as the 20th and 21st centuries). The book contains a series of original essays, not necessarily following the conventional academic rules of archaeological writing or thinking, allowing rhetoric to have its place in disclosing the archaeological. In each of the four sections that constitute this book (method, time, heritage and materiality), the contributors deal with different archaeological tropes, such as excavation, surface/depth, genealogy, ruins, fragments, repressed memories and traces. They criticize their modernist implications and rework them in creative ways, in order to show the power of archaeology not just to understand the past, but also the present.
Reclaiming Archaeology includes essays from a diverse array of archaeologists who have dealt in one way or another with modernity, including scholars from non-Anglophone countries who have approached the issue in original ways during recent years, as well as contributors from other fields who engage in a creative dialogue with archaeology and the work of archaeologists.
Research Interests:
En este artículo se ofrece una síntesis de la arqueología de la guerra civil española, un campo de investigación que cuenta ya con veinte años de experiencia. Se pasará revista a algunos de los proyectos más relevantes realizados tanto en... more
En este artículo se ofrece una síntesis de la arqueología de la guerra civil española, un campo de investigación que cuenta ya con veinte años de experiencia. Se pasará revista a algunos de los proyectos más relevantes realizados tanto en el ámbito de los frentes de batalla como en la violencia de retaguardia: las fosas con represaliados. La arqueología está permitiendo conocer mejor la vida cotidiana de los soldados, determinados aspectos de las operaciones militares y los patrones de la violencia política.
Research Interests:
The critique of archaeology made from an indigenous and postcolonial perspective has been largely accepted, at least in theory, in many settler colonies, from Canada to New Zealand. In this paper, I would like to expand such critique in... more
The critique of archaeology made from an indigenous and postcolonial perspective has been largely accepted, at least in theory, in many settler colonies, from Canada to New Zealand. In this paper, I would like to expand such critique in two ways: on the one hand, I will point out some issues that have been left unresolved; on the other hand, I will address indigenous and colonial experiences that are different from British settler colonies, which have massively shaped our understanding of indigeneity and the relationship of archaeology to it. I am particularly concerned with two key problems: alterity-how archaeologists conceptualize difference-and collaboration-how archaeologists imagine their relationship with people from a different cultural background. My reflections are based on my personal experiences working with communities in southern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa and South America that differ markedly from those usually discussed by indigenous archaeologies.
La critique de l'archéologie dans une perspective autochtone et postcoloniale a été largement acceptée, du moins en théorie, dans de nombreuses colonies de colons, du Canada à la Nouvelle-Zélande. Dans le présent texte, j'aimerais développer cette critique de deux façons : d'une part, je soulignerai certaines questions qui n'ont pas été résolues ; d'autre part, j'aborderai les expériences autochtones et coloniales qui sont différentes de celles des colonies de colons britanniques, qui ont façonné massivement notre compréhension de l'indigénéité et de la relation entre l'archéologie et celle-ci. Je m'intéresse particulièrement à deux problèmes clés : l'altérité-comment les archéologues conçoivent la différence-et la collaboration-comment les archéologues imaginent leur relation avec des personnes d'un autre milieu culturel. Mes réflexions sont basées sur mes expériences personnelles de travail avec des communautés d'Europe du Sud, d'Afrique subsaharienne et d'Amérique du Sud qui diffèrent sensiblement de celles que l'on retrouve habituellement dans les archéologies autochtones.
La critique de l'archéologie dans une perspective autochtone et postcoloniale a été largement acceptée, du moins en théorie, dans de nombreuses colonies de colons, du Canada à la Nouvelle-Zélande. Dans le présent texte, j'aimerais développer cette critique de deux façons : d'une part, je soulignerai certaines questions qui n'ont pas été résolues ; d'autre part, j'aborderai les expériences autochtones et coloniales qui sont différentes de celles des colonies de colons britanniques, qui ont façonné massivement notre compréhension de l'indigénéité et de la relation entre l'archéologie et celle-ci. Je m'intéresse particulièrement à deux problèmes clés : l'altérité-comment les archéologues conçoivent la différence-et la collaboration-comment les archéologues imaginent leur relation avec des personnes d'un autre milieu culturel. Mes réflexions sont basées sur mes expériences personnelles de travail avec des communautés d'Europe du Sud, d'Afrique subsaharienne et d'Amérique du Sud qui diffèrent sensiblement de celles que l'on retrouve habituellement dans les archéologies autochtones.
Research Interests:
The Spanish Civil War is remembered in many ways. Vehicles of memory are often material and include ruins, monuments and museums, which are all amenable to archaeological scrutiny. In the present chapter, I am particularly interested in... more
The Spanish Civil War is remembered in many ways. Vehicles of memory are often material and include ruins, monuments and museums, which are all amenable to archaeological scrutiny. In the present chapter, I am particularly interested in museums. Unlike in other countries, Spain has consistently failed to have proper museums of the conflict managed by the State. The gap is filled by private and local initiatives. Here, I examine, from an archaeological perspective, a variety of small war museums in different parts of Spain. My point is that all such projects entail important problems regarding the story of the Civil War that is being told. Lacking a master narrative to which they can refer, they deploy their own accounts, which either whitewash history or reproduce stereotypes, often inherited from the dictatorship. These narratives, I argue, are more ethnographic than historical and explain the war in antipolitical terms, thus failing to capture its meaning and consequences.
Research Interests:
2016 fue un año crítico en la política mundial. Los cambios que se precipitaron ese año, tendrán un largo impacto en la arqueología, antropología y disciplinas relacionadas. En este texto reflexionamos sobre lo que supone la emergencia... more
2016 fue un año crítico en la política mundial. Los cambios que se precipitaron ese año, tendrán un largo impacto en la arqueología, antropología y disciplinas relacionadas. En este texto reflexionamos sobre lo que supone la emergencia del populismo reaccionario y cómo afecta a la práctica y teoría de la arqueología. Nos centramos en tres críticas y tres propuestas: Por el lado de la crítica, hemos aprendido que el liberalismo no es suficiente para enfrentar este fenómeno político, que los profesionales de la arqueología tenemos una posición muy modesta en los grandes debates socio-políticos; y que hay más colectivos marginalizados que aquellos que suelen ser el objeto de atención preferente de la arqueología pública dominante. Por el lado de las propuestas, planteamos la necesidad de provocar al Pueblo, en vez de adularlo, de recuperar una pedagogía crítica y transformativa que enseñe sobre la arqueología y utilice la arqueología para ofrecer un aprendizaje, y de evitar la "cruzada patrimonial". La consecuencia genérica que podemos extraer es que debemos repolitizar de nuevo la arqueología para convertirla en una voz realmente crítica en el escenario global. Palabras claves: arqueología social, patrimonio cultural, populismo, neoliberalismo, multiculturalismo. 2016 was a critical year in global politics. Changes were so dramatic, that they will have a long-lasting impact in archaeology, anthropology and related fields. In this article, we reflect critically on the phenomenon of reactionary populism and how it affects the practice and theory of archaeology. We will focus here in three main critics and three proposals. We have learnt that mere and more liberalism is not enough to face this political phenomenon, that archaeologists hold a very weak position in the main socio-political debates, and that there are other marginalized collectives out there beyond those who represent the primary focus of current public archaeology. Based on these critics, we set out three things we can do: we propose an archaeology that provokes People, instead of flattering them, an archaeology understood as a critical and transformative pedagogy that teaches about archaeology, but also uses archaeology to teach, and an archaeology that escapes the "heritage crusade". To conclude, we have to make archaeology political again to reconstruct it as a public engaged practice, for making it a truly critical voice in the global stage. 1 Este artículo es una traducción de la versión original publicada en inglés "Against reactionary populism: towards a new public archaeology" en la revista Antiquity 2018, 92 (362):507-515. Si bien Chungara no publica traducciones de artículos, el Comité Editorial decidió hacer la excepción y publicar esta versión en la modalidad de Debate. Finalmente agradecemos a los comentaristas que aceptaron esta invitación, y a los editores de Antiquity que permitieron su publicación en español. Páginas 1-7 Chungara Revista de Antropología Chilena De Brasil al Reino Unido, 2016 fue un año crítico en la política mundial. Las cosas no volverán a ser como eran. El patrimonio, la ética y el modo cómo las arqueólogas se relacionan con el público, fueron y serán profundamente afectados. Ha llegado, pues, la hora de reflexionar críticamente sobre el fenómeno del "populismo reaccionario" y cómo éste afecta la teoría y práctica de la arqueología. El "populismo reaccionario" se puede definir como una forma política que es anti-liberal en términos de su política de la identidad (en lo que se refiere, por ejemplo, al multiculturalismo, el derecho de aborto, derechos de las minorías o libertad religiosa), pero es liberal en su política económica. Se caracteriza por su nacionalismo, racismo y anti-intelectualismo. Como Judith Butler afirma, "quiere restaurar un estado prístino de la sociedad, orientado por la nostalgia y por una sensación de pérdida de privilegio" (Soloveitchik 2016). En este contexto, el modelo liberal y multi-vocal de las ciencias sociales y las humanidades ha dejado de ser válido. En cambio, apelamos a nuestros colegas a apoyar una arqueología lista para intervenir en debates públicos más amplios, que no se limite a los temas del patrimonio y de la relevancia local, que no tenga miedo de defender su conocimiento experto en los escenarios
Research Interests: Archaeology, Social Archaeology, Theoretical Archaeology, Archaeological Theory, Arqueología, and 15 moreArqueología histórica, Patrimonio Cultural, Arqueología Social, Teorias Da Arqueologia, Arqueología Y Antropología, Patrimonio, Arqueología Política Epistemologia, Arqueología Contemporánea, Arqueologia Publica, Teoría y método en arqueología, Arqueologia Pública, Arqueología, sociedad y política, Teoría de la arqueologia, Teoria da arqueologia, and Arqueologia do Contemporâneo
Es necesaria una aclaración inicial: el objeto de presentar esta versión en español de nuestro texto en Antiquity-pensada como una crítica esencialmente a la academia anglosajona-responde a dos objetivos: en primer lugar, debatir... more
Es necesaria una aclaración inicial: el objeto de presentar esta versión en español de nuestro texto en Antiquity-pensada como una crítica esencialmente a la academia anglosajona-responde a dos objetivos: en primer lugar, debatir cuestiones que son de interés común con colegas latinoamericanos a quienes admiramos y que han realizado desde hace años una reflexión profunda sobre los temas que tratamos en nuestro artículo. Esta lógica situacional de nuestro texto, por responder a un reproche que Haber nos demanda, fue bien percibida por Tantaleán. En segundo lugar, el regreso del populismo reaccionario no es exclusivo del norte global. El final del ciclo progresista en América Latina y el auge de la extrema derecha (con Bolsonaro a la cabeza) indican que la crisis es compartida y la reflexión debe ser, también, compartida. Una segunda aclaración, también necesaria, es que hablamos de ultraderecha. Efectivamente, como indica Acuto, Bolsonaro y Trump son la derecha nacionalista y la oligarquía de siempre, pero el lenguaje y los modos que utilizan son los del populismo chovinista-también el fascismo del siglo XX fue populista y oligárquico al mismo tiempo. Por eso utilizamos siempre el adjetivo "reaccionario". El ministro de finanzas de Bolsonaro es un neoliberal de escuela canónica. Pero su capacidad se multiplica en un juego político que no es el habitual de las élites conservadoras de siempre, sino que ha roto el espacio de la representación política moderna, construido a través del consenso liberal después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial (aquí señalar, por cierto, que el concepto que utilizamos de "liberalismo" es el mismo al que se refiere Gándara, y que, a pesar de la acepción inglesa tan cara en USA, no tiene nada que ver con la izquierda del espectro político), mediante la apelación directa al pueblo y su soberanía. A pesar de lo que dice Acuto, que pareciera querer salvar el populismo como opción posible para la resistencia, vemos necesario reconocer el fondo populista de estas estrategias. Esta colusión entre neoliberalismo y populismo reaccionario es algo más que anecdótico y nuestra sensación es que tenemos que parar mientes en ella, etnografiarla, analizarla en y a través de su expresión material, si es que queremos entender lo que nos ocurre. Y lo que nos ocurre es muy parecido en muchos países distintos. No es un privilegio del Norte o del Sur estar mejor, o peor, en esto. Las mismas tendencias se perciben en todas partes, desde Hungría a USA, desde Italia a Brasil, desde el Reino Unido a la India, o desde España a Argentina. Lo que nos ocurre es una muestra del agotamiento de las soluciones liberales clásicas, a través de las cuales se impuso un modelo de modernidad individualista y el "siglo norteamericano", que es el siglo anglo-sajón. Y es también muestra de que la respuesta a este proyecto político desde la corrección política, las identity policies, y lo que Nancy Fraser resume en la estupenda etiqueta "neoliberalismo progresista", no solo está agotada sino que ha arrojado a todos los que sienten perdedores de esta parte de la historia, a votar masivamente opciones reaccionarias, que les perjudicarán. A Funari y Alarcón les parecen peligrosas nuestras críticas al cosmopolitismo y la tolerancia, e insisten en la importancia del conflicto en las relaciones humanas. No rechazamos esa visión; lo que criticamos es la visión liberal, neoliberal, de todo ello porque mistifica las relaciones de poder realmente existentes. Esto es algo que también compartimos con Alejandro Haber, cuando apura la idea de que las comunidades son complejas y están atravesadas por antagonismos, pero no participamos en cambio de la disyuntiva que plantea: o la intervención se ciñe a los intereses comunitarios o se hace ciencia colonial. En primer lugar, creemos que es posible realizar arqueología en consonancia con el interés comunitario y al mismo tiempo que no esté circunscrita a la comunidad, es decir, que aborde problemas más amplios. Nada más lejos de nuestra intención que descartar a las comunidades, como interpretan Haber y Funari y Alarcón. Nuestro texto no aboga por reducir o desplazar el marco de acción política, sino por ampliarlo. Abogamos por una arqueología "que no se limite a los temas del patrimonio y de la relevancia local", no que deje de lado el patrimonio y lo local, como también pide Londoño. También abogamos por ampliar el espectro de la comunidad. Y nos preguntamos por qué nuestros colegas latinoamericanos no han dicho nada de los votantes de Bolsonaro o Macri, de los 20 millones de habitantes del Gran Buenos Aires o las periferias de Belo Horizonte o Bogotá. Crear grandes narrativas críticas es parte del programa de arqueología pública que propugnamos. Haber ve en ellas mecanismos productores de colonialidad. Por esta regla de tres, las propuestas de los grandes teóricos de la decolonialidad-Quijano, Dussel, Grosfoguel-serían paradójicamente herramientas coloniales, dado que no se circunscriben a ninguna comunidad concreta y proponen grandes narrativas filosóficas, de aspiración universalista y explicativa ¿Es el pensamiento decolonial colonial?
Research Interests: Historical Archaeology, Public Archaeology, Contemporary Archaeology, Archaeological Theory, Arqueología, and 15 moreArqueología histórica, Teoría Arqueológica, Antropología Social, Arqueología Social, Arqueología del Paisaje, Arqueología Y Antropología, Arqueología Política Epistemologia, Populismo, Arqueología Contemporánea, Arqueologia Pública, Critical Archaeology, Public Perceptions of Archaeology, Archaeology of Power, Reactionary Politics, and Arqueología crítica
The question of the Anthropocene has gained increased notoriety among archaeologists recently. Precisely because of that, it is in need of thorough critique. The aim of this article is not to rule out the concept of Anthropocene, but to... more
The question of the Anthropocene has gained increased notoriety among archaeologists recently. Precisely because of that, it is in need of thorough critique. The aim of this article is not to rule out the concept of Anthropocene, but to point out some of its problems: the relationship of Anthropocenic discourses with the emergence of an all-embracing biopolitical science; the inadequacies of the term, which blames all humans equally for a specific effect of modernity and capitalism; its failure to accept a diversity of origins (but also the problem of accepting overly deep origins), and the shortcomings of adopting a geological framework for archaeology. I thus suggest that the discipline has to define its own eras – also for the contemporary period – and that the Age of Destruction could be an apt archaeological counterpart for the Anthropocene. One of the benefits of outlining an archaeological era is that it brings modernity and capitalism back to the fore, and with them issues of power and conflict that have been largely lost in recent post-anthropocentric debates.
Research Interests:
Gathering places play a paramount role among pastoralists. Markets, sanctuaries, graves and watering places are foci of ritual, economic and social activity. They facilitate inter and intragroup relations, including trade, marriage... more
Gathering places play a paramount role among pastoralists. Markets, sanctuaries, graves and watering places are foci of ritual, economic and social activity. They facilitate inter and intragroup relations, including trade, marriage arrangements, political alliances, conflict resolution ceremonies, the dispersal of news and religious activities. In this article the authors will explore two types of gathering places used by nomadic pastoralists in Somaliland during the second millennium AD: fairs and sacred sites. Relations between nomads and foreigners were negotiated in open, seasonal markets, whereas sanctuaries and graves facilitated relations among different clans. The case of Somaliland exemplifies well the social, economic and symbolic relevance of nomadic gathering places and their extraordinary resilience: while towns have an intermittent and chequered history in the country, ephemeral meeting places remained as key features in the landscape for hundreds of years.
Research Interests: Landscape Archaeology, Indian Ocean History, Medieval Archaeology, Archaeology of Religion, Somalia, and 9 moreIndian Ocean World, Nomadism, Somaliland, Indian Ocean Trade, Archaeology of Ritual, African Archaeology, Indian Ocean Archaeology, Arabian/Persian Gulf Archaeology, and Nomadic/Indigenous People
Ethics has abandoned its niche status to become a shared concern across archaeology. The appraisal of the sociopolitical context of archaeological practice since the 1980s has forced the discipline to take issue with the expanding array... more
Ethics has abandoned its niche status to become a shared concern across archaeology. The appraisal of the sociopolitical context of archaeological practice since the 1980s has forced the discipline to take issue with the expanding array of ethical questions raised by work with living people. Thus, the original focus on the archaeological record, conservation and scientific standards, which are behind most deontological codes, has been largely transcended and even challenged. In this line, this review emphasizes philosophical and political aspects over practical ones and examines some pressing ethical concerns which are related with archaeology's greater involvement with contemporary communities, political controversies and social demands, including ethical responses to the indigenous critique, the benefits and risks of applied archaeology, the responsibilities of archaeologists in conflict and post‐ conflict situations, vernacular digging and collecting practices, development‐led archaeology, heritage and the ethics of things.
Research Interests:
The Sudanese-Ethiopian borderland has seen interaction between state and non-state peoples for at least two millennia. However, little is known about these interactions from an archaeological point of view. Our research project intends to... more
The Sudanese-Ethiopian borderland has seen interaction between state and non-state peoples for at least two millennia. However, little is known about these interactions from an archaeological point of view. Our research project intends to cast light on this topic by looking at the lowlands of Ethiopia. Surveys conducted during three eld seasons in the Metema and Qwara regions – in the Atbara-Dinder watershed – have allowed us to document diiferent cultural traditions that are related to Sudan in medieval and post-medieval times. Here, we present the data and discuss the relevance of the ndings to understand border dynamics from the mid-rst millennium onwards.
La région frontalière entre le Soudan et l'Éthiopie a été témoin d'interactions entre peuples étatiques et non étatiques pendant plus de deux millénaires. Pourtant, on connait très peu de ces interactions d'un point de vue archéologique. Notre projet de recherche vise à clariiier cette problématique dans le cadre d'une exploration des terres basses du nord-ouest éthiopien. Les prospections menées pendant trois saisons aux régions de Metema et Qwara nous ont permis de documenter des diifé-rentes traditions culturelles qui sont liées au Soudan médiéval et post-médiéval. Nous présentons ici les données et discu-tons la relevance de nos trouvailles pour mieux comprendre la dynamique frontalière depuis la moitié du premier millénaire de notre ère.
La région frontalière entre le Soudan et l'Éthiopie a été témoin d'interactions entre peuples étatiques et non étatiques pendant plus de deux millénaires. Pourtant, on connait très peu de ces interactions d'un point de vue archéologique. Notre projet de recherche vise à clariiier cette problématique dans le cadre d'une exploration des terres basses du nord-ouest éthiopien. Les prospections menées pendant trois saisons aux régions de Metema et Qwara nous ont permis de documenter des diifé-rentes traditions culturelles qui sont liées au Soudan médiéval et post-médiéval. Nous présentons ici les données et discu-tons la relevance de nos trouvailles pour mieux comprendre la dynamique frontalière depuis la moitié du premier millénaire de notre ère.
Research Interests:
Authors´ response to comments by Reinhard Bernbeck & Susan Pollock, Yannis Hamilakis, Laurajane Smith & Gary Campbell, and Larry Z. Zimmerman on the paper “Against reactionary populism: Towards a new public archaeology”, published in... more
Authors´ response to comments by Reinhard Bernbeck & Susan Pollock, Yannis Hamilakis, Laurajane Smith & Gary Campbell, and Larry Z. Zimmerman on the paper “Against reactionary populism: Towards a new public archaeology”, published in Antiquity, Vol: 92, Issue: 362, April 2018, pp. 507–515 (paper) & 525–27 (response). Doi response: https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.26
Abstract of the main paper: From Brazil to the United Kingdom, 2016 was a critical year in global politics. The panorama changed so dramatically and so fast, that it will surely have a long-lasting impact in archaeology, anthropology and related fields. Heritage, ethics and the way we relate to the public will all be affected in one way or another. In this article we reflect critically on the phenomenon of reactionary populism and how it affects the practice and theory of archaeology. There are three main lessons that can be drawn from the advance of reactionary populism across the world. First, we have learnt that mere and more liberalism is not enough to face this political phenomenon. Second, archaeologists are perhaps not as fearsome agents of Empire as we thought. And third, there were other marginalized collectives out there who were not self-assertive indigenous communities, liberal African-Americans, class-conscious industrial workers or homeless interested in documenting their lives. Based on such lessons, three things we can do: we need an archaeology that provokes the People, instead of flattering them; we need an archaeology that teaches, we need a critical and transformative pedagogy that teaches about archaeology but also uses archaeology to teach; and we do not need to go against heritage; rather, we need an archaeology that escapes the 'heritage crusade'. To conclude, we have to make archaeology political again. We must stop flirting with progressive neoliberalism and go beyond those issues of identity, ethics and narrative that have occupied the political imagination of archaeology for three decades. We need to go back to the hard core of politics—radical dissent, conflict, inequality—and reconstruct archaeology as a public engaged practice to make it a truly critical voice in the global stage.
Abstract of the main paper: From Brazil to the United Kingdom, 2016 was a critical year in global politics. The panorama changed so dramatically and so fast, that it will surely have a long-lasting impact in archaeology, anthropology and related fields. Heritage, ethics and the way we relate to the public will all be affected in one way or another. In this article we reflect critically on the phenomenon of reactionary populism and how it affects the practice and theory of archaeology. There are three main lessons that can be drawn from the advance of reactionary populism across the world. First, we have learnt that mere and more liberalism is not enough to face this political phenomenon. Second, archaeologists are perhaps not as fearsome agents of Empire as we thought. And third, there were other marginalized collectives out there who were not self-assertive indigenous communities, liberal African-Americans, class-conscious industrial workers or homeless interested in documenting their lives. Based on such lessons, three things we can do: we need an archaeology that provokes the People, instead of flattering them; we need an archaeology that teaches, we need a critical and transformative pedagogy that teaches about archaeology but also uses archaeology to teach; and we do not need to go against heritage; rather, we need an archaeology that escapes the 'heritage crusade'. To conclude, we have to make archaeology political again. We must stop flirting with progressive neoliberalism and go beyond those issues of identity, ethics and narrative that have occupied the political imagination of archaeology for three decades. We need to go back to the hard core of politics—radical dissent, conflict, inequality—and reconstruct archaeology as a public engaged practice to make it a truly critical voice in the global stage.
Research Interests:
From Brazil to the United Kingdom, 2016 was a critical year in global politics. Heritage, ethics and the way that archaeologists relate to the public were and will all be affected, and it is time to reflect critically on the phenomenon of... more
From Brazil to the United Kingdom, 2016 was a critical year in global politics. Heritage, ethics and the way that archaeologists relate to the public were and will all be affected, and it is time to reflect critically on the phenomenon of ‘reactionary populism’ and how it affects the practice and theory of archaeology. ‘Reactionary populism’ can be defined as a political form that is anti-liberal in terms of identity politics (e.g. multiculturalism, abortion rights, minority rights, religious freedom), but liberal in economic policies. It is characterised by nationalism, racism and anti-intellectualism, and as Judith Butler states in a recent interview, it wants “to restore an earlier state of society, driven by nostalgia or a perceived loss of privilege” (Soloveitchik 2016). Our intention here is to argue that the liberal, multi-vocal model of the social sciences and the humanities is no longer a viable option. Instead, we ask our colleagues to embrace an archaeology that is ready to intervene in wider public debates not limited to issues of heritage or of local relevance, is not afraid of defending its expert knowledge in the public arena, and is committed to reflective, critical teaching.
Research Interests:
This chapter deals with a case in which work that aimed at rekindling a critical memory of a conflictual past ends up producing a certain form of oblivion instead. The work in question is the archaeological research we conducted at two... more
This chapter deals with a case in which work that aimed at rekindling a critical memory of a conflictual past ends up producing a certain form of oblivion instead. The work in question is the archaeological research we conducted at two battlefields of the Spanish Civil War. During our work, we found the traumatic history of the war neutralized through memory practices sponsored, in one case, by government institutions and in another by grassroots associations. In both cases, the involuntary memories materialized in things insisted in disrupting the comfortable narrative that people tried to impose on them. I will argue that archaeologists should work to channel this material memory so as to construct critical accounts of the past that are helpful to foster a more reflexive citizenry.
Research Interests:
The ruins of modernity are inevitably the ruins of the North. Actual or imagined ruined cities are always Euro-American industrial or post-industrial metropolises. The South, however, has its modern, post-industrial ruins as well. And... more
The ruins of modernity are inevitably the ruins of the North. Actual or imagined ruined cities are always Euro-American industrial or post-industrial metropolises. The South, however, has its modern, post-industrial ruins as well. And they are neither a later nor an imperfect version of those in the North. Quite the opposite: they antedate the modern ruins of Europe and the United States, sometimes by a hundred years. As with other disasters, events happening in the South often foreshadow those that are about to happen in the ‘developed’ world. The early post-industrial ruins of South America are an excellent material to reflect critically on ruination, other modernities, the global logic of capitalism and the work of coloniality, both in the region and elsewhere. In this paper, I will focus on one of the countries that have generated more and more fascinating ruins of modernity: Brazil.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In this chapter, I argue that we need to accept that some societies in the past as well as in the present might have had a relationship to the past which is incommensurable with familiar forms of historicity and historical practices,... more
In this chapter, I argue that we need to accept that some societies in the past as well as in the present might have had a relationship to the past which is incommensurable with familiar forms of historicity and historical practices, including archaeology, historiography, heritage and antiquarianism. I surmise that those groups that reject history often do so for political reasons and therefore the rejection should not be understood as a failure.
Research Interests:
In this article an archaeological critique of the time of modernity is proposed. This critique is developed through three main themes: materiality, multitemporality and ethics. Materiality is key to produce relevant archaeological... more
In this article an archaeological critique of the time of modernity is proposed. This critique is developed through three main themes: materiality, multitemporality and ethics. Materiality is key to produce relevant archaeological accounts of the time of modernity: our discipline has to follow the time of things, rather than the temporal frameworks inherited from history and other fields. Multitemporality is at the heart of modernity, which has to be understood as a heterogeneous phenomenon in which multiple, often incompatible, temporalities coalesce and clash, rather than as a homogeneous time of change and acceleration. Finally, the blurring of the past/present divide which is manifested through universal justice, political temporalities and indigenous memory practices pose an important challenge to archaeology, but at the same time provide a unique opportunity to make the discipline socially relevant.
Research Interests:
House societies have become popular with archaeologists in recent years, due to (among other things) their conspicuous material basis (wealth, heirlooms and the houses themselves). As yet, however, most archaeological studies have focused... more
House societies have become popular with archaeologists in recent years, due to (among other things) their conspicuous material basis (wealth, heirlooms and the houses themselves). As yet, however, most archaeological studies have focused only on individual societies. In this article, we offer a comparative and long‐term approach to the phenomenon, using as case studies the Bronze Age and Iron Age communities of the Levant, the Aegean and the central Mediterranean. We describe the elements that define them as house societies and examine their evolution through time. We follow a strictly Lévi‐Straussian definition of the house that prevents the concept from losing heuristic power. Using this definition, we consider that houses are to be found in ranked societies without centralization and in complex agropastoral systems, like those of the Mediterranean, where agricultural soil is scarce and liable to be monopolized. We argue that the house emerges in these competitive contexts as an institution to control land and retain patrimony undivided. Through a combination of archaeological and written sources, we try to demonstrate that it is possible to document several strategies used by house societies to acquire and retain power and wealth, including dowry, levirate, a bilateral system of marriage alliances, ancestor cults, specific architectures and house treasures. The case studies addressed here offer good comparative material for assessing similar processes elsewhere. At the same time, we argue that the Mediterranean area developed a particular ideology, that of the shepherd ruler, that was essential to legitimate the house.
Research Interests: Prehistoric Archaeology, Levantine Archaeology, Funerary Archaeology, Aegean Bronze Age (Bronze Age Archaeology), Syro-Palestinian archaeology, and 22 moreAnthropology of Kinship, Domestic Space, Biblical Archaeology, Archaeology of Architecture, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Mycenaean era archaeology, Chiefdoms (Archaeology), Mediterranean archaeology, Ugaritic Studies, Minoan Archaeology, Protohistory, Central Anatolian Neolithic, Nuragic Archaeology, Bronze and Iron Ages in Italy (Archaeology), Anthropological Archaeology, Sardinian Nuragic, Neolithic of the Balkans, Villanovan and Latial Cultures, Heterarchy, Italian Pre- and Protohistory, Archaeology of the Levant, and House Societies
The idea that houses and territories can be alternative systems for structuring society is undermining the traditional belief that lineages, clans and other systems based on kinship ties were the only conceivable principle of social... more
The idea that houses and territories can be alternative systems for structuring society is undermining the traditional belief that lineages, clans and other systems based on kinship ties were the only conceivable principle of social organization in traditional communities. The concept of société à maison (house society) developed by Lévi-Strauss is proving to be a useful tool in anthropology. However, only a few archaeological examples have been provided to date. Following Lévi-Strauss’ definition and drawing on different ethnographic cases of societies based on house and territory rather than kinship, an archaeological example from the Iberian Iron Age is explored.
Research Interests:
For a long time, heritage has been associated with positive and productive values: the construction of ideas of community and nation, and even international identities. During the last decade and a half, however, there has been a growing... more
For a long time, heritage has been associated with positive and productive values: the construction of ideas of community and nation, and even international identities. During the last decade and a
half, however, there has been a growing concern with the legacies of violence, the product of a hundred years of global, civil, and ethnic wars, genocides, colonialism, and dictatorship. This is a fast-growing subfield in heritage studies and the deployment of heritage consumption. A variety of descriptors have been proposed: negative, dissonant, painful, dark, difficult. In parallel, archaeologists and heritage practitioners have been paying closer attention to the conflicts that emerge in cases of apparently peaceful heritage, including classic lieux de mémoire. In this chapter, we will focus on heritage that is directly associated with violence.
half, however, there has been a growing concern with the legacies of violence, the product of a hundred years of global, civil, and ethnic wars, genocides, colonialism, and dictatorship. This is a fast-growing subfield in heritage studies and the deployment of heritage consumption. A variety of descriptors have been proposed: negative, dissonant, painful, dark, difficult. In parallel, archaeologists and heritage practitioners have been paying closer attention to the conflicts that emerge in cases of apparently peaceful heritage, including classic lieux de mémoire. In this chapter, we will focus on heritage that is directly associated with violence.
Research Interests:
In this comment I argue that ethnoarchaeology is not the only means for an archaeological engagement with living traditional communities. I suggest that some practices can be better labelled ‘archaeology of the present’, due to their lack... more
In this comment I argue that ethnoarchaeology is not the only means for an archaeological engagement with living traditional communities. I suggest that some practices can be better labelled ‘archaeology of the present’, due to their lack of interest in providing analogical frameworks of inspiration for archaeology. Instead, the archaeology of the present aims to better understand living societies by using archaeological methods and theories. Rather than pitting one sub-discipline against the other, however, I suggest that they are both necessary and complementary.
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Archaeology, Anthropology, Ontology, Ethnoarchaeology, Material Culture Studies, and 13 morePersonhood, Amazonia, Anthropology of Technology, Hunter-Gatherers (Anthropology), Material Culture, Anthropological Archaeology, Symmetrical Archaeology, Brazilian Amazon, Anthropological, Fabrication, Relational, Hunter Gatherers, and Hunter Gatherer
Critical heritage studies, indigenous archaeologies, and similar undertakings attempt to recover the repressed memories and experiences of subaltern groups and to deconstruct hegemonic discourses about the past. In both cases, the... more
Critical heritage studies, indigenous archaeologies, and similar undertakings attempt to recover the repressed memories and experiences of subaltern groups and to deconstruct hegemonic discourses about the past. In both cases, the emphasis has been on remembrance. I would like to focus here on the production of oblivion, rather than memory, and the political reasons behind amnesic societies. My main question is: What happens when the work of domination has been so systematic and violent that alternative memories have been thoroughly shattered? This is explored through a case study in Equatorial Guinea, in which the long-term work of domination under different politico-economic regimes has severely damaged collective memory and produced what I call " anti-heritage. "
Research Interests:
In this chapter, I explore the long-term effects of global capitalism in a small region of Central Africa from an archaeological point of view. The region in question is the Muni Estuary, in Equatorial Guinea, a former Spanish colony. A... more
In this chapter, I explore the long-term effects of global capitalism in a small region of Central Africa from an archaeological point of view. The region in question is the
Muni Estuary, in Equatorial Guinea, a former Spanish colony. A multidisciplinary research project was carried out there that allowed us to document the history of the area between the beginnings of the Iron Age (first century BC) and the present post-colonial regime. It also revealed both the predatory and unsustainable nature of capitalist exploitation, which is particularly clear in non-Western contexts, and the strong relationship between the pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial political economies of capitalism. The concept of “coloniality of power”, proposed by Aníbal Quijano, will be used here to make sense of this relationship. I would argue that the micro-history of the Muni, far from being an anecdote in the global history of capitalist depredation is, in fact, an eloquent example of the form in which capitalism operates in the world.
Muni Estuary, in Equatorial Guinea, a former Spanish colony. A multidisciplinary research project was carried out there that allowed us to document the history of the area between the beginnings of the Iron Age (first century BC) and the present post-colonial regime. It also revealed both the predatory and unsustainable nature of capitalist exploitation, which is particularly clear in non-Western contexts, and the strong relationship between the pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial political economies of capitalism. The concept of “coloniality of power”, proposed by Aníbal Quijano, will be used here to make sense of this relationship. I would argue that the micro-history of the Muni, far from being an anecdote in the global history of capitalist depredation is, in fact, an eloquent example of the form in which capitalism operates in the world.
A comment on J. Vives-Ferrándiz: "Negotiating Colonial Encounters: Hybrid Practices and Consumption in Eastern Iberia (8th–6th centuries BC)".
Research Interests:
A short review of the relationship between European archaeology and colonialism, during both the colonial and post-colonial eras.
Research Interests:
Postcolonial archaeologies, and indigenous archaeology, have become a dominant paradigm and one that is difficult to criticize without risking being accused of going against the interests of native communities. A thorough critique of this... more
Postcolonial archaeologies, and indigenous archaeology, have become a dominant paradigm and one that is difficult to criticize without risking being accused of going against the interests of native communities. A thorough critique of this paradigm is necessary to understand the relationship between
archaeologists and indigenous groups, the work of capitalism and current misrepresentations of otherness. I argue that indigenous archaeologies suffer from a misunderstanding of alterity) and of the real asymmetries that exist between archaeologists and native communities. Respecting the Other will take us away from the path of multiculturalism espoused by postcolonial science. This article is intended not as a critique of indigenous communities, but of the intellectual, political and economic operations of capitalism.
archaeologists and indigenous groups, the work of capitalism and current misrepresentations of otherness. I argue that indigenous archaeologies suffer from a misunderstanding of alterity) and of the real asymmetries that exist between archaeologists and native communities. Respecting the Other will take us away from the path of multiculturalism espoused by postcolonial science. This article is intended not as a critique of indigenous communities, but of the intellectual, political and economic operations of capitalism.
Despite its relevance, destruction as a social phenomenon has remained largely untheorized in archaeology and it has received serious attention only during the last fifteen years. In this text, I will focus on three issues: the relevance... more
Despite its relevance, destruction as a social phenomenon has remained largely untheorized in archaeology and it has received serious attention only during the last fifteen years. In this text, I will focus on three issues: the relevance of destruction as an archaeological theme and trope; the potential of destruction to explore other temporalities and
narratives, and the ambiguity of destruction processes. Although this is a reflection largely based on my experience as an archaeologist working on the remains of the 20th and 21st centuries, I believe that thinking through modern processes may help us understand both the deep past and the present.
narratives, and the ambiguity of destruction processes. Although this is a reflection largely based on my experience as an archaeologist working on the remains of the 20th and 21st centuries, I believe that thinking through modern processes may help us understand both the deep past and the present.
A short and general overview of the archaeologies of the contemporary past.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The archaeology of the contemporary past is becoming an important subfield within the discipline and one attractive not only to archaeologists but to social scientists and artists. The period that started with World War I, here identified... more
The archaeology of the contemporary past is becoming an important subfield within the discipline and one attractive not only to archaeologists but to social scientists and artists. The period that started with World War I, here identified as “supermodernity,” has been characterized by increasing devastation of both humans and things and the proliferation of archaeological sites, such as battlefields, industrial ruins, mass graves, and concentration camps. The mission of a critical archaeology of this period is not only telling alternative stories but also unveiling what the supermodern power machine does not want to be shown. For this we need to develop a new kind of archaeological rhetoric, pay closer attention to the materiality of the world in which we live, and embrace political commitment without sacrificing objectivity.
Research Interests:
This paper arises from a dissatisfaction with the 'Great Divides' created between past and present, self and others, people and material culture in the context of ethnoarchaeology. While conducting ethnoarchaeological research in Spain,... more
This paper arises from a dissatisfaction with the 'Great Divides' created between past and present, self and others, people and material culture in the context of ethnoarchaeology. While conducting ethnoarchaeological research in Spain, Ethiopia and Brazil, I have been faced with the theoretical and practical shortcomings of this field, which is too deeply rooted in modernist concerns and prejudices. I propose a reconsideration of ethnoarchaeology as archaeology tout court - an archaeology of the present - which has to be symmetrical in character. This means that present and past must not be hierarchically conceived - the former in the service of the latter or vice versa - nor strictly separated ontologically, and the relations between humans and things have to be properly problematized.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Throughout this chapter I argue that our concern for others, as archaeologists, has been caught up in the neoliberal rhetoric of development, which helps to maintain and justify, in the long term, the inequalities it purports to... more
Throughout this chapter I argue that our concern for others, as archaeologists, has been caught up in the neoliberal rhetoric of development, which helps to maintain and justify, in the long term, the inequalities it purports to alleviate. Moreover, some archaeological preconceptions in the past and some research strategies in the present have helped, in a conscious or unconscious way, to construct indigenous communities as dispensable or improvable. Here I propose another sort of archaeological engagement, drawing upon the work of Žižek and Bhabha among others, which is both cosmopolitan and vernacular in its scope. This archaeology excavates the present in order to understand from within the destructive effects of globalization, modernism, and development, and it explores the genealogies of collaboration between the discipline and universalistic theories of progress. In so doing, it intends to provide a more radical critique of the modern world than it is usually offered in our field of research. The work presented here is a mixture of archaeology and ethnography that has been carried out in Ethiopia and Brazil.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The aim of this chapter is twofold: firstly, I will outline the economy of punishment inflicted on the vanquished, and particularly to the bodies of the vanquished, during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and post-war period. Many of... more
The aim of this chapter is twofold: firstly, I will outline the economy of punishment inflicted on the vanquished, and particularly to the bodies of the vanquished, during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and post-war period. Many of those who fell into the hands of the rebel army or paramilitary militias were tortured, killed and their bodies buried in unmarked graves. Others suffered all kinds of deprivations in concentration camps and prisons. In the second part, I will describe how the corporeality of the vanquished has been kept alive in different ways until recent exhumations started to expose the bodies again.
Research Interests:
The archaeology of recent traumatic events, such as genocides, mass political killings and armed conflict, is inevitably controversial. This is also the case for the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), where the incipient archaeology of the... more
The archaeology of recent traumatic events, such as genocides, mass political killings and armed conflict, is inevitably controversial. This is also the case for the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), where the incipient archaeology of the confrontation is marked by bitter debates: Should this conflicting past be remembered or forgotten? Which version of the past is going to be remembered? What are the best politics of memory for a healthy democracy? The archaeologies of the war face manifold problems: the lack of interest in academia, which fosters amateurism; the great divide between public and scientific practice; the narrow perspectives of some undertakings; the lack of coordination among practitioners, and the threats to the material remains of the war. An integrated archaeology of the conflict, which helps to make things public, is defended here.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Between 1936 and 1952 Spain was transformed into an immense prison. Hundreds of concentration camps were established by General Franco all over the country: some of them were purpose built; others reused older buildings and spaces. No... more
Between 1936 and 1952 Spain was transformed into an immense prison. Hundreds of concentration camps were established by General Franco all over the country: some of them were purpose built; others reused older buildings and spaces. No less than half a million people passed through the camps and many thousands died in them due to ill-treatment, hunger, disease and executions. The Franco regime produced a complex typology of camps, articulated with other spaces of punishment, which was fundamental in disciplining its subjects and reconstructing the nation along totalitarian lines. In recent years, historical research on the camps has grown exponentially, but the materiality of the sites themselves has rarely been taken into consideration. Here, the Spanish camps will be studied archaeologically as a technology of repression. Towards understanding the Spanish camps in their wider context, the similarities and dissimilarities with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy will be pointed out. Finally, I will scrutinize the contentious place of the camps in the collective memory of Spaniards today.
Research Interests:
As part of a project on the archaeology of the civil war and dictatorship in Spain, a Nationalist position was excavated in the village of Abánades (Guadalajara), which was occupied between March 1937 and the end of the war. The sector... more
As part of a project on the archaeology of the civil war and dictatorship in Spain, a Nationalist position was excavated in the village of Abánades (Guadalajara), which was occupied between March 1937 and the end of the war. The sector that was excavated comprised a trench, two dugouts, and a stone-and-concrete covered trench. The findings reveal more about daily life in General Franco's trenches, while they also offer insights into totalitarian ideology, international involvement in the conflict, and the war economy.
Research Interests:
During the last decade, there has been a growing debate in Spain regarding the management of the material legacy of civil war and dictatorship (1936-1975). This debate has been fostered, among other things, by the policies developed by... more
During the last decade, there has been a growing debate in Spain regarding the management of the material legacy of civil war and dictatorship (1936-1975). This debate has been fostered, among other things, by the policies developed by the socialist government since March 2004. Although these policies are not essentially different from those that exist in Germany, France or South Africa, they have provoked a great controversy and they are criticized as a biased attempt at rewriting history at will by the leftist government. Whereas an active remembrance of dictatorship and war is espoused for other countries (such as Germany) as a means of reinforcing democratic values, oblivion is defended for Spain. In this work, the problematic nature of Francoist heritage is explored through two paradigmatic and controversial examples: the Valley of the Fallen and the prison of Carabanchel, both in Madrid. The first is a fascist lieux de mémoire, the second a place of democratic struggle. However, the Valley is marked as a national heritage monument and, as such, it receives hundreds of thousands of visitors every year, whereas Carabanchel is a ruin threatened by total destruction. I will try to show here how this situation can be changed through the use of archaeology, so as to produce a different memory of war and political repression.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Between the late 19th century and the 1960s hundreds of thousands of people emigrated from Galicia. From the 1970s onwards many of these emigrants returned to their homeland and with them came a sense of shame for their old premodern... more
Between the late 19th century and the 1960s hundreds of thousands of people emigrated from Galicia. From the 1970s onwards many of these emigrants returned to their homeland and with them came a sense of shame for their old premodern peasant identity. In this article, the relationship between former emigrants and their houses is explored. Material culture in general and (ruins of) houses in particular are actively used to make statements about history and identity and to (re)construct biographies.
Research Interests:
La teoría arqueológica ha cambiado notablemente durante la última década. Muchos arqueólogos ya no defienden muchas de las premisas básicas de la arqueología procesual y posprocesual, pero hasta ahora se han propuesto pocas teorías que... more
La teoría arqueológica ha cambiado notablemente durante la última década. Muchos arqueólogos ya no defienden
muchas de las premisas básicas de la arqueología procesual y posprocesual, pero hasta ahora se han propuesto pocas
teorías que sean suficientemente ambiciosas y consistentes como para reemplazar a los antiguos paradigmas. Vivimos
por lo tanto en un estado de indefinición paradigmática. En este artículo propongo un análisis de los elementos críticos
que están en juego en este momento de transición y sugiero nuevos caminos para hacer la disciplina más relevante
científica y socialmente.
muchas de las premisas básicas de la arqueología procesual y posprocesual, pero hasta ahora se han propuesto pocas
teorías que sean suficientemente ambiciosas y consistentes como para reemplazar a los antiguos paradigmas. Vivimos
por lo tanto en un estado de indefinición paradigmática. En este artículo propongo un análisis de los elementos críticos
que están en juego en este momento de transición y sugiero nuevos caminos para hacer la disciplina más relevante
científica y socialmente.
Research Interests:
I link fun- damental changes in archaeological, science-based knowledge and the increasing application of Big Data to necessary changes in archaeologi- cal methods, interpretations and theory. The prospects of these changes, I shall... more
I link fun- damental changes in archaeological, science-based knowledge and the increasing application of Big Data to necessary changes in archaeologi- cal methods, interpretations and theory. The prospects of these changes, I shall argue, open up a new chapter in archaeological knowledge that demand similar changes in archaeological methods and theory, some al- ready underway, some still to be developed. This I shall exemplify first by a historical comparison and then by tracing some recent research trends.
Research Interests:
Are we now living in a new geological epoch called the Anthropocene? Geo-scientists discuss whether there is a need for a new concept covering the last 250 years' immense human impact on the... more
Are we now living in a new geological epoch called the Anthropocene? Geo-scientists discuss whether there is a need for a new concept covering the last 250 years' immense human impact on the earth. How are we going to understand and define 'heritage'and archaeology in a rapidly changing global environment? The 'linguistic turn'in humanities and social sciences has had a huge impact on both archaeology and heritage studies since c. 1980. A critique is raised against the anti-essentialist view that heritage is constructed, not ...
Research Interests:
This is a version, edited by Alfredo González-Ruibal of a discussion involving Bjørnar Olsen, Tim Webmoor, Chris Witmore and myself that appeared also in the journal World Archaeology (39: 2007). Symmetry is an epistemological and... more
This is a version, edited by Alfredo González-Ruibal of a discussion involving Bjørnar Olsen, Tim Webmoor, Chris Witmore and myself that appeared also in the journal World Archaeology (39: 2007).
Symmetry is an epistemological and ethical principle developed in the social study of scientific practice. This essay connects a symmetrical archaeology to major trends in the discipline since the 1960s and to key components of archaeological practice - relational ontologies, mixtures of past and present, people and things, biology and culture, individual and society. Symmetrical archaeology is a culmination of effort in archaeology to undercut these modernist dualities and to recognize the vitality of the present past. Symmetry adds new force to the claim that archaeologists have a unique perspective on human engagements with things, on social agency and constructions of contemporary identity.
The principle of symmetry as part of a broader post humanist and materialist agenda in what some have called a new ontological turn. A detailed introduction to this prospect of a materialist archaeology can be found in the book Archaeology: the Discipline of Things (University of California 2012) by the four of us - https://www.academia.edu/1234484/Archaeology_The_discipline_of_things
Symmetry is an epistemological and ethical principle developed in the social study of scientific practice. This essay connects a symmetrical archaeology to major trends in the discipline since the 1960s and to key components of archaeological practice - relational ontologies, mixtures of past and present, people and things, biology and culture, individual and society. Symmetrical archaeology is a culmination of effort in archaeology to undercut these modernist dualities and to recognize the vitality of the present past. Symmetry adds new force to the claim that archaeologists have a unique perspective on human engagements with things, on social agency and constructions of contemporary identity.
The principle of symmetry as part of a broader post humanist and materialist agenda in what some have called a new ontological turn. A detailed introduction to this prospect of a materialist archaeology can be found in the book Archaeology: the Discipline of Things (University of California 2012) by the four of us - https://www.academia.edu/1234484/Archaeology_The_discipline_of_things
Research Interests:
The archaeology of twentieth-century warfare, with its focus on Western armies and military issues, has often neglected indigenous experiences of war and social aspects, particularly the role of women in reproducing culture through... more
The archaeology of twentieth-century warfare, with its focus on Western armies and military issues, has often neglected indigenous experiences of war and social aspects, particularly the role of women in reproducing culture through material practices in situations of great distress. In this article, we propose a postcolonial examination of imperialistic war in Ethiopia. We study the cave of Zeret, the refuge of a large guerrilla group that was massacred by the Italian colonial army in 1939. Using the material evidence available, life underground is described, as well as the military events that led to the destruction of the place and the killing of most of its inhabitants. We argue that archaeology can be a way of revealing, with material facts, the brutality of fascism and colonialism. Finally, drawing upon Spivak and Derrida, we ask: What are the ethical problems of representing the voice of the subaltern? What is the role of materiality in evoking her presence?
Research Interests:
The project “Archaeological and Ethnoarchaeological survey of Metema and Qwara (NW Ethiopia)” began in 2013 aimed to understand the long-term history of the borderland between Sudan and Ethiopia. The area is not only a political and... more
The project “Archaeological and Ethnoarchaeological survey of Metema and Qwara (NW Ethiopia)” began in 2013 aimed to understand the long-term history of the borderland between Sudan and Ethiopia. The area is not only a political and cultural border zone, but also a religious one –between Christianity and Islam, monotheism and paganism. In this
article, we describe a religious landscape that developed along the Middle Gendewuha valley (Metema district) between the 14th and the 18th century. The monastic sites that were part of this religious landscape were, for a very long time, the westernmost bastion of Christianity, facing the “pagan” and Muslim lowlands. Their presence has
to be understood in relation to the westward expansion of the Ethiopian Kingdom. Our archaeological survey contributes to the knowledge of the borderlands of the Ethiopian state, monastic landscapes, and the material culture of the 16th-18th centuries, the best represented
period at the sites that we have studied. In this article we briefly describe the main monastic center in the valley, Mahbär Sïlasse, which is still active, and examine the archaeological remains of two further sites that have been abandoned: Gännätä Maryam and Ayzenbïl.
article, we describe a religious landscape that developed along the Middle Gendewuha valley (Metema district) between the 14th and the 18th century. The monastic sites that were part of this religious landscape were, for a very long time, the westernmost bastion of Christianity, facing the “pagan” and Muslim lowlands. Their presence has
to be understood in relation to the westward expansion of the Ethiopian Kingdom. Our archaeological survey contributes to the knowledge of the borderlands of the Ethiopian state, monastic landscapes, and the material culture of the 16th-18th centuries, the best represented
period at the sites that we have studied. In this article we briefly describe the main monastic center in the valley, Mahbär Sïlasse, which is still active, and examine the archaeological remains of two further sites that have been abandoned: Gännätä Maryam and Ayzenbïl.
Research Interests:
DOUBLE VISION: IMAGINES, SIMULACRA, REPLICAS Co-organizers: Alicia Jiménez (alicia.jimenez@stanford.edu) y Alfredo González- Ruibal (alfredo.gonzalez-ruibal@incipit.csic.es) Archaeology leans heavily on typologies and similarities.... more
DOUBLE VISION: IMAGINES, SIMULACRA, REPLICAS
Co-organizers: Alicia Jiménez (alicia.jimenez@stanford.edu) y Alfredo González-
Ruibal (alfredo.gonzalez-ruibal@incipit.csic.es)
Archaeology leans heavily on typologies and similarities. Narratives about
cultural change, the spreading of ideas and diasporas are often linked to things that
look alike but belong to different chronological or geographical frames.
Material connections between “centers” and “peripheries” are commonly traced by
looking at provincial copies of models irradiated from the metropolis. And yet, despite
the longstanding tradition of typological studies and analysis of the meaning of style
variation (Wiessner, Sackett, Conkey & Hastorf), the role of imagines, simulacra and
replicas in the transmission of culture is still relatively ill-defined from a theoretical point
of view in archaeological research.
The papers in this session will explore theoretical approaches to an
archaeology of the double and ask questions that help us to go beyond the original
model/fake copy dilemma. By interrogating the materiality of the replica we hope to be
able to analyze the vision/double as essence and not only as a vacuous instance of
representation.
Session format: Series of papers followed by Q&A and final comments by a
discussant.
We particularly welcome papers focusing on:
• The politics of double vision: vision as power / the anti-authoritarian gaze.
• The double as translation and interpretation.
• The double as a purposely inaccurate copy, a partial representation (pars pro
toto) or as means of taking the alien within.
• The double as failure and the impossibility of an exact replica.
• The influence of the double or the consequences of “double vision” for the
“model”.
• Replicas that make possible the vision of something that is immaterial or
absent.
• The role of the double in our understanding of things by means of visualization.
• The importance of replication in constructing pasts (ancestor representation)
and futures (material projections of visions).
• The relationship between cloning and social reproduction as well as the
relationship between homogeneous material culture and individuation.
To submit a paper abstract (max 300 words) please email the session organizers by
March 8. Session organizers are responsible for selecting papers, and for sending the
complete session roster along with all paper abstracts and titles to the TAG-Chicago
committee by March 15, 2013.
Co-organizers: Alicia Jiménez (alicia.jimenez@stanford.edu) y Alfredo González-
Ruibal (alfredo.gonzalez-ruibal@incipit.csic.es)
Archaeology leans heavily on typologies and similarities. Narratives about
cultural change, the spreading of ideas and diasporas are often linked to things that
look alike but belong to different chronological or geographical frames.
Material connections between “centers” and “peripheries” are commonly traced by
looking at provincial copies of models irradiated from the metropolis. And yet, despite
the longstanding tradition of typological studies and analysis of the meaning of style
variation (Wiessner, Sackett, Conkey & Hastorf), the role of imagines, simulacra and
replicas in the transmission of culture is still relatively ill-defined from a theoretical point
of view in archaeological research.
The papers in this session will explore theoretical approaches to an
archaeology of the double and ask questions that help us to go beyond the original
model/fake copy dilemma. By interrogating the materiality of the replica we hope to be
able to analyze the vision/double as essence and not only as a vacuous instance of
representation.
Session format: Series of papers followed by Q&A and final comments by a
discussant.
We particularly welcome papers focusing on:
• The politics of double vision: vision as power / the anti-authoritarian gaze.
• The double as translation and interpretation.
• The double as a purposely inaccurate copy, a partial representation (pars pro
toto) or as means of taking the alien within.
• The double as failure and the impossibility of an exact replica.
• The influence of the double or the consequences of “double vision” for the
“model”.
• Replicas that make possible the vision of something that is immaterial or
absent.
• The role of the double in our understanding of things by means of visualization.
• The importance of replication in constructing pasts (ancestor representation)
and futures (material projections of visions).
• The relationship between cloning and social reproduction as well as the
relationship between homogeneous material culture and individuation.
To submit a paper abstract (max 300 words) please email the session organizers by
March 8. Session organizers are responsible for selecting papers, and for sending the
complete session roster along with all paper abstracts and titles to the TAG-Chicago
committee by March 15, 2013.
Research Interests: Anthropology, Violence, Globalisation and cultural change, Material Culture Studies, Typology, and 36 morePostcolonial Studies, Digital Technology, Colonialism, Post-Colonialism, Cultural Evolution, Theoretical Archaeology, Postcolonial Theory, Mesoamerica, Empire, Nineteenth Century Archaeological Collecting Practices, Minoan Archaeology, Roman Provincial Archaeology, Archaeological Computing, Reflectance Transformation Imaging, Cultural change, Cultural Change and Political Dominance (Hellenization, Romanization), Imperialism, Digital Anthropologies, State, Archaeological and Heritage Tourism, Imitation, Migration and Diaspora, Mimicry, imitation Samian Ware / terra sigillata, Knowledge Practices, Human Rights/legal Anthropology, Artisans, The meaning(s) of Classical Imitation: Rhetoric, Greek Historiography and Roman History., Conservation of Antiquities and Works of Art, Three Dimensional Visualization and Replication, Ethnic and 'Non ethnic' Identities, Anthropological Debates, Artifact Replicas, Archaeological Visualisation and the Production of Replicas, Artefacts As Historic Archives, and How Material Culture Is Used As Evidence In Nineteenth Century Archaeology
Contemporary archaeologies offer new possibilities of social engagement and critique, because knowledge and even experience of the recent past are immediately available to non-‐ experts—as opposed to more remote periods. From this point... more
Contemporary archaeologies offer new possibilities of social engagement and critique, because knowledge and even experience of the recent past are immediately available to non-‐ experts—as opposed to more remote periods. From this point of view, the archaeology of the present creates new challenges in relation to what is considered heritage, how it is produced and by whom, and how it is managed. At the same time, this kind of archaeology offers new spaces of creativity and transdisciplinary interaction, as its field of study is not subjected to the rigid disciplinary policing and boundary-‐making that limits engagements with the material remains of other historical periods. Contemporary sites bring together communities, artists, archaeologists, anthropologists and heritage experts around matters of common concern that may not yet be sanctioned as heritage. In this working group we will be discussing, among other things: • Which are the opportunities for professional archaeologists and heritage managers in the archaeological record of the recent past and the present? • What are the potential modes of engagement with communities and which are the risks and benefits of such engagements? • How can we deploy critique, in which spaces and to address which topics? • Can critique, education and play be reconciled? • What is the role of art and artists in the archaeology of the present? • What are the public benefits of contemporary archaeology and heritage? • How can we convince local authorities of the relevance of the material present? Participants are expected to make short presentations (5-‐10 minutes) to spark debate. Presentations can be of actual examples of archaeological work with the present that collaborates with communities, co-‐creates heritage or provokes public controversy. Alternatively, projects at a planning stage can be presented or simply ideas they wish to develop in the future. In any case, participants are expected to be non-‐conventional and develop creative proposals that explore new forms of mediation, engagement and manifestation beyond disciplinary limits. Political and aesthetic provocations are welcome.