No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Degrowth and a sustainable future for archaeology
Abstract
It is increasingly acknowledged that 21st-century archaeology faces serious challenges from a variety of directions, ranging from the theoretical to the practical. Above all, the discipline’s entanglement with capitalism, capitalist ideologies and capitalist institutions is simply unsustainable. The concept of degrowth involves a reconceptualization of archaeology’s possible future(s) in terms of a withdrawal from capitalism and an emphasis on collective and caring praxis looking towards both a sustainable future and the possibilities of the immediate present. A degrowth approach to archaeology can provide a useful supplement to existing critiques and proposed alternatives to current practices. Degrowth proposals such as reorienting economic behaviours towards cooperative, convivial and dépense (communal use of surplus) activities while freeing people to pursue work they find meaningful have potential applications in archaeological practice that address some of the problems currently facing the discipline.
... Equally, we perceive the enormous benefits, both for researchers and community members (several authors of this paper identify as both) when a project is carried out with an emphasis on developing authentic relationships, credible reciprocity, and a view towards the long-term nature of collaboration. While it did not always work in an ideal manner, the "slow science" (sensu Alleva, 2006; see also Caraher, 2019;Cunningham & McEachern, 2016;Flexner, 2020;Rizvi, 2016) research approach practised in this project demonstrates the importance of community engagement for an archaeology that can contribute to the present and future, far beyond the boundaries of the discipline (see Black Trowel Collective et al., 2024). ...
... There is great merit to moving slowly and carefully in community partnerships, both because of cultural sensitivities and a duty of care, and because a slow approach results in a deeper understanding of communities past and present. Slow science (Cunningham & MacEachern, 2016) and related projects like degrowth (Flexner, 2020) provide important correctives to an increasingly metrics and productivity-oriented field, particularly as research is demonstrating increasing signs of stress, disillusionment and burnout in and beyond Australian archaeology (e.g., Mate & Ulm, 2021). ...
Australian South Sea Islanders are a distinctive cultural group comprising descendants of over 60000 labourers who came to Australia from Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and elsewhere in the Western Pacific between 1863 and 1904. “Blackbirded” labourers were commonly referred to as victims of a slave trade, though many also came voluntarily to work in the sugar plantations of northern New South Wales and Queensland. The advent of racist exclusionary immigration policies introduced from 1901 further forced South Sea Islanders to the margins of colonial society. Yet many Australian South Sea Islanders would argue their untold history speaks to resilience and overcoming adversity. Australian South Sea Islanders have a distinctive cultural heritage, including material culture, oral traditions embedded in the landscape and connections to places – from sugar mills to domestic sites – revealed archaeologically. This heritage must be approached sensitively given its association with sometimes difficult histories but is crucial to understanding the contributions of Australian South Sea Islanders to Australian society, contemporary communities and identities, and historical and social significance across multiple scales. Collaborative research with Australian South Sea Islanders pushes the boundaries of “community archaeology” by taking a slow approach to research, reframing ethnographic objects and cultural landscapes, and producing an archaeology that can include many voices.
... Qué tipo de arqueología sería necesaria en un escenario así está siendo objeto de cierta consideración. De momento, la única propuesta es asociarla a una suerte de arqueología comunitaria (Flexner 2020;Zorzin 2021). ...
La arqueología preventiva (también conocida como arqueología comercial o arqueología profesional) nació durante los años sesenta para enfrentar la pérdida de registros arqueológicos en áreas sujetas a desarrollo urbanístico, principalmente en ciudades. Tras unos inicios difíciles, la arqueología preventiva ha sido el campo de la disciplina arqueológica que más ha crecido en los últimos cincuenta años. Dos han sido sus principios fundamentales: condicionar las nuevas construcciones a una excavación previa y que los promotores asuman el coste de esas excavaciones. Cincuenta años después, se propone una revisión crítica de la arqueología preventiva haciendo un recorrido por sus principales tópicos. La sociedad está cambiando y la conciencia de la emergencia ecológica posiblemente nos obligue a repensar la lógica de consumo de suelo propia del capitalismo. La nueva arqueología preventiva debe adaptarse a un marco de decrecimiento y mayor conciencia sobre la finitud de los recursos, incluido el registro arqueológico.
... However, the same cannot be said for the tripartite chronology, where instead we see a narrative which closer resembles a bell curve: a 'Preclassic' period of 'becoming', a 'Classic' as civilizational zenith, and, finally, a 'Postclassic' fall. This is a very different kind of grand narrative and, indeed, one diametrically opposed to contemporary 'well' curve narratives concerning the European trajectory: Classical Antiquity-Dark Ages-Renaissance/ Enlightenment/Modernism. Towards better appreciating the value of narrative in research, recent scholarship has addressed the role of 'storytelling' in archaeology (Flexner 2020;Moshenska 2021;Zorzin 2021; see also White 1980). Equally, archaeologists have utilized historiographical theory, with the Annales school proving particularly influential since the 1990s in promoting an appreciation of the utility of different timescales in understanding the past (e.g. ...
While increased focus in recent decades has been paid to conceptions of time in archaeological interpretation, comparably less attention has been afforded to the way in which we ourselves conceive of time in the construction of chronologies to periodize the past. In this paper, I focus on the tripartite chronology utilized by scholars of the Precolumbian Maya as a case study to explore the potential of a critical approach to archaeological chronologies and periodizations. By examining the chronology's origins and the intellectual histories which underpin it, I demonstrate that the issues at stake are more than questions of temporal accuracy but, rather, matters of reflexivity. Through a process of ‘sublimation’, problematic assumptions and mentalities upon which periodizations were originally constructed are obscured in contemporary usage, leading to the perpetuation of outdated tropes and a conceptual path dependency in narratives of the past. Conversely, appreciating the arbitrary nature of chronological demarcations and treating such frameworks as negotiable and open to revision is a powerful tool in opening up new interpretive possibilities to the narration of the past.
... In Neolithic southeast Europe and in Island Southeast Asia, the authors emphasize mobility as a means of resistance, showing how commoners sought to distance themselves from nascent social hierarchies (Furholt et al. 2020: 169-183). Other case studies across different contexts have also drawn on anarchist theory and bottom-up conceptualizations of political agency to reinterpret assumptions about the relationship between centralized power, hierarchy, and social complexity (Angelbeck 2016;Borake 2019;Currás and Sastre 2019;Crumley 2022;DeMarrais and Earle 2017;Fargher and Espinoza 2016;Fernandez-Götz and Thurston 2021;Graeber and Wengrow 2021;Flexner 2018Flexner , 2020Hodder 2022;Jennings et al. 2021;Sanger 2023;Ribeiro 2022;Wilkinson 2021;Yoffee 2016). Many of these studies emphasize the autonomous and egalitarian orientations of non-elites, charting how commoners sought to limit or escape from concentrations of social power. ...
Ceramic trends on Unguja Island in Zanzibar, Tanzania provide insights into non-elite political strategies on the East African Swahili Coast. Synthesizing imported ceramic data from two seasons of systematic field survey across rural Unguja with historical, ethnographic, and archaeological evidence from coastal East Africa, this paper argues that an integrative orientation toward power characterized bottom-up action on the Swahili Coast over the second millennium CE. While theories of bottom-up action have emphasized commoner autonomy and resistance to clientage, debt, and social inequality, evidence from the Swahili Coast attests to efforts by non-elites to seek entrance into cycles of reciprocal obligation as a means for recognition and social mobility-a specifically non-egalitarian orientation toward power. In response, elites competed with one another to accumulate wealth-in-people, resulting in a competitive patron-client system that prevented political consolidation. Elucidating these dynamics contributes to an understanding of how non-elite political strategies have shaped sociopolitical systems globally.
... More recently, calls have been made against the increasingly neoliberalist environment of archaeology (Brami et al., 2022, pp. 239-240), in activist movements such as anarchist archaeology (Angelbeck, Borck, & Sanger, 2018;Flexner & Gonzalez-Tennant, 2018;Morgan, 2015;Ribeiro, 2022), and also through the concept of "degrowth" (Flexner, 2020;Zorzin, 2021). While all these critiques address serious problems and have contributed interesting solutions to the social issues plaguing archaeology, most have failed to recognise the new forms of capitalist exploitation of recent decades (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2018;Fisher, 2009;Hardt & Negri, 2000;Marazzi, 2011;Sennett, 2000). ...
While archaeology is certainly a politically conscious discipline, with various members involved in political and activist movements, especially focusing on gender and race issues, little has been said, discussed, or done with regards to class and elitism. In fact, it seems that since the advent of postmodernity in the 1970s, class and elitism have become moot topics. The aim of this article is to reflect upon class-based discrimination and elitism in archaeology, first by tracing the changes they have undergone, especially during late capitalist times, and how class has become sublimated to fit the neoliberal agenda; second, the article focuses on several issues concerning class and elitism in the university context in general, and in archaeology in particular, and how these serve as barriers to those less wealthy and fortunate; third, this work highlights how these issues concerning class and elitism in archaeology then affect scientific discourse on one hand, which has become more technologically advanced, and consequently more expensive, and archaeological theory on the other, which in its hectic search for novelty has lost its capacity to truly contribute anything new to our understanding of past and present societies.
... Perhaps one way to make anarchism more palatable then, to those who misunderstand it, is to focus a while on its traditionally feminized qualities and further highlight the myriad ways in which anarchism prioritizes "affective relations, sensuality, playing, laughing, loving" (Holloway 2010:16). If we truly are to imagine a future in which the world broadly and archaeology specifically have a sustainable future, we could do worse than embrace methods of collaboration which are drawn from anarchism -from its fundamental call to question authority in human societies to more recent related discourse on "degrowth" (Flexner 2020; see also Kallis 2018). ...
This article charts the development of The Made in Migration Collective, a coalition of displaced people, academics, and creative professionals that was developed during a recently completed British Academy postdoctoral fellowship. Following discussion of how archaeology and heritage are under attack globally from far-right nationalism and specifically within the UK, I provide examples of how community archaeology can highlight fissures in capitalism. I follow others in interpreting anarchism as a potential form of care. Two public heritage exhibitions – one digital, one “live”—which were collaboratively produced by The Made in Migration Collective are reflected upon.
... Scholars (e.g. Flexner, 2020;Zorzin, 2021) have also discussed the prospects of archaeology within the degrowth movement. By moving away from the destructive (for the planet and society) capitalist model, archaeology has the potential as a discipline to become a sustainable activity that pursues knowledge for the benefit of society, and can, therefore, shape the future within ongoing socio-ecological crises. ...
Maritime archaeology has been identified as a significant field among the humanities that could contribute to the global sustainable development agenda. This article explores the relevance of maritime archaeological studies to initiatives of climate action. Βy reviewing the contributions of various state-of-the-art projects and by linking their aims and outcomes to specific targets of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the author highlights the benefits of involving maritime archaeological research in the pursuit of sustainability and climate resilience. This involvement could play a key role in reinforcing human-centred and culturally aware solutions to the current climate change effects that threaten human populations, especially in maritime regions. It is hoped that this discussion will inspire researchers in the humanities, archaeology, and maritime archaeology in particular, to use their expertise within the framework provided by the sustainable development agenda to help build a better future.
... We propose this fully aware that many archaeologists find the notion of a closer relationship perturbing, having been nominally sub-contracted to construction projects for 30 years, often frustrated at the lack of influence over the sector. This burgeoning relationship has run in parallel with an ethics-led rejection of the reality of the current situation despite maintaining and participating in the business models that enable it (for some previous and recent discussions, see [2,4,[31][32][33][34]). ...
This paper explores how current challenges in the development-led system of archaeology in the UK are widely applicable elsewhere. Using the UK model, we explore the legislative and structural frameworks that enable archaeological work and the pressing need to better provide benefit for the wider public from that work. We believe that there is a focus on outputs rather than outcomes, which has perpetuated the idea that contracting archaeology is a product of development rather than a process that can instigate social value. We argue that the shift to public benefit and social value in UK policy should be encouraging practitioners operating within this industry to pay more attention to the links between their standard contracting practice and the benefits they deliver to people through their work. We explore why this could be a way of meeting policy priorities but also an opportunity to bridge the gaps between expert-identified heritage values and societal needs.
... Será esencial que todo el colectivo se conciencie de esto. Nos hemos fijado mucho en la participación social, pero el público «arqueológico» sigue descuidado y en un momento en el que prima la arqueometría sobre todo lo demás, no podemos olvidar que sin cohesión en el colectivo no podremos conseguir cambios efectivos y generalizados, incluso si esos cambios tienen que subirse al carro del decrecimiento (Flexner 2020, Zorzin 2021) en un momento en el que todo parece insostenible. ...
¿Hemos llegado ya al futuro? Es la pregunta de partida de una reflexión que busca situar la arqueología española tras diez años de la publicación del libro El futuro de la arqueología en España. A través de un repaso por los diferentes ámbitos que engloban la práctica arqueológica se profundizará en los avances que está viviendo el sector y los retos que siguen pendientes. Un manifiesto por la unión del colectivo desde el análisis crítico de la realidad profesional de la arqueología.
... Universities might seem slow institutions but are increasingly about speed through advanced capitalist valorization of quantitative publication pressure, student numbers, high-impact-factor journals, and the industrial capture of financial research resources (Hall 2016, Stengers 2018. Ironically, in archaeology the slow movement took hold with quite some speed during the last decade, where we see slow science, but also concepts such as degrowth, speculative ethics, radical and punk science, anarchism, and other anti-capitalist movements becoming increasingly addressed and implemented (see Morgan 2015, Rizvi 2016, Rathbone 2017, Caraher 2019, or Flexner 2020. These of course, all take quite different approaches to the concept of slowness in terms of both subject matter and goals. ...
This article presents an alternative to archaeological object observation through an exercise in alterity and slow looking. It is inspired by the movement of Slow Archaeology, and based on the art of slow looking, perspectivism, and 16th century Japanese object aesthetics in the context of the Japanese tea ceremony. The exercise experiments with different vantage points, embodiment, and empathy related to theories of the ontological turn and non-discursive knowledge. Stimulating ourselves to employ different ways of looking can be a helpful tool in starting to think about difference and alterity, but can also possibly reach new insights on ancient object-use, performance, and perception. It can therefore form an additional instrument to formal object analyses already practiced in archaeology, as well as be a form of emancipation in education as it draws on other, non-discursive, forms of knowledge.
... Quality recording and on-site intellectual reflection are also values shared with "good archaeology" (Ellis 2016, 69) to which digital recording can positively contribute. Could digital recording not also contribute to such movements, including "degrowth archaeology" (Flexner 2020), by potentially "slowing down" or "destressing" some aspects of the excavation process? ...
The increasing use of digital technologies can provide significant benefits to the excavation and interpretative process in archaeology. Yet, despite major developments in the last two decades, digital recording can still be seen as part of the realm of tech savvy archaeologists, well-funded projects, or larger commercial units who can develop their own recording systems or deploy a pre-existing application. The latter are often expensive and can be technologically challenging to implement, and few of these focus on both context recording and feature drawing. In response, this paper presents an accessible and flexible low-cost DIY digital workflow developed by the Comparative Kingship Project, Scotland, allowing field practitioners to benefit from some of the key advantages of “going digital” without the associated costs or complexities of some of the other systems.
I consider the power of “slow archaeology” in a study of the Huntington Anatomical Collection, focusing on Irish immigrants who lived and worked in New York City over the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries. I argue that normative bioarchaeological categories and methods cannot fully account for the varied life histories of persons in the collection. Instead, I turn to the tenets of slow archaeology to move between scales of analysis and material traces. With a slow approach, embodied experiences of labor are highlighted and discourses about laborers are challenged. A slow approach seeks to recover the lived experiences of individuals exploited in life and made anonymous in death and is one potential way toward a more ethical bioarchaeology.
In the last decade many publications have appeared on degrowth as a strategy to confront environmental and social problems. We undertake a systematic review of their content, data and methods. This involves the use of computational linguistics to identify main topics investigated. Based on a sample of 561 studies we conclude that: (1) content covers 11 main topics; (2) the large majority (almost 90%) of studies are opinions rather than analysis; (3) few studies use quantitative or qualitative data, and even fewer ones use formal modelling; (4) the first and second type tend to include small samples or focus on non-representative cases; (5) most studies offer ad hoc and subjective policy advice, lacking policy evaluation and integration with insights from the literature on environmental/climate policies; (6) of the few studies on public support, a majority concludes that degrowth strategies and policies are socially-politically infeasible; (7) various studies represent a “reverse causality” confusion, i.e. use the term degrowth not for a deliberate strategy but to denote economic decline (in GDP terms) resulting from exogenous factors or public policies; (8) few studies adopt a system-wide perspective – instead most focus on small, local cases without a clear implication for the economy as a whole. We illustrate each of these findings for concrete studies.
This Element volume focuses on how archaeologists construct narratives of past people and environments from the complex and fragmented archaeological record. In keeping with its position in a series of historiography, it considers how we make meaning from things and places, with an emphasis on changing practices over time and the questions archaeologists have and can ask of the archaeological record. It aims to provide readers with a reflexive and comprehensive overview of what it is that archaeologists do with the archaeological record, how that translates into specific stories or narratives about the past, and the limitations or advantages of these when trying to understand past worlds. The goal is to shift the reader's perspective of archaeology away from seeing it as a primarily data gathering field, to a clearer understanding of how archaeologists make and use the data they uncover.
Games and other forms of play are core human activities, as vitally constitutive of cultural and social practices in the past as they are today. Consequently, play, games and fun should be central in archaeological theory, but our review shows they are anything but. Instead, very few studies deal with these concepts at all, and most of those that do focus on how the affordances play offers link it to ritual, power or other ‘more serious’ phenomena. Here, we offer an explanation as to why play has taken such a backseat in archaeological thought and practice, relating it to the ambivalent aesthetics of having fun with the past in our own discipline. Building on our own playful practices and those of other scholars in the ancient board gaming and archaeogaming communities, we propose a move towards a more playful archaeology, which can provide us with a new window into the past as well as into our own professional practices.
Digital archaeology is both a pervasive practice and a unique subdiscipline within archaeology. The diverse digital methods and tools employed by archaeologists have led to a proliferation of innovative practice that has fundamentally reconfigured the discipline. Rather than reviewing specific technologies, this review situates digital archaeology within broader theoretical debates regarding craft and embodiment; materiality; the uncanny; and ethics, politics, and accessibility. A future digital archaeology must move beyond skeuomorphic submission and replication of previous structural inequalities to foment new archaeological imaginaries.
Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Anthropology Volume 51 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
#pubarchMED is a project aiming to define the dynamics of archaeological heritage management in the Mediterranean from the perspective of public archaeology. Its ethnographic approach draws on three main sources: legal and academic literature, observation and the perception of professionals. This paper aims to delve into the development of public archaeology and how it impacts practice across the Mediterranean. While the importance of contemporary society for archaeologists seems to be high in the interviews conducted, it will be discussed to what level current practice actually deals with these issues in a critique of a traditional approach to archaeology that does not recognize the transversality of public archaeology or its importance for the future of the discipline itself.
Since the 1980s, archaeology has been further embedded in a reinforced and accelerating capitalist ideology, namely neo-liberalism. Most archaeologists had no alternative but to adapt to it through concessions to the free-market economy and to the so-called mitigations taking place within development. However, it is now apparent that the ongoing global socio-ecological disaster we are facing cannot be reversed with compromises but rather with a radical engagement against the injunctions of competition and growth. I suggest that we must anticipate the necessary transformations of archaeology in the coming decades, before archaeology becomes a technical avatar of the neo-liberal dogma, or before its complete annihilation for being deemed ‘superfluous’ (Wurst 2019, 171) by the capitalist regime. In this paper, I will use the idea of ‘degrowth’ to propose a new paradigm for archaeology by applying the concepts of civil disobedience, voluntary simplicity, redistribution of means and the ethics of no-growth.
Archaeology is a process for, at minimum, constructing history from the material record. The decisions about what to use to create that history is unavoidably political. This political act primarily serves to construct and enforce the power of the state, although it can be used to contest it. Prefiguration, emerging from anarchist theory and parallel social movements, can be understood not simply as a radical practice, but also as an understanding of how history is created. Thus, it can be used to explain how history is constructed from past and contemporary archaeological decisions, as well as what socio-political organizations that future history will naturalize.
In 2014, the Southeastern Archaeological Conference (SEAC) conducted a sexual harassment survey of its membership. The survey's goal was to investigate whether sexual harassment had occurred among its members, and if so, to document the rate and demographics of harassment. Our findings include a high (66%) level of harassment, primarily among women, with an additional 13% of respondents reporting sexual assault. This article provides an overview of the survey and responses. Additionally, we analyze survey data aimed at capturing change over time in harassment and assault, correlation between field and non-field tasks and harassment and assault, and correlation between gender of supervisor and harassment and assault. We also discuss the effects of harassment and assault on careers. We conclude with suggestions for decreasing the rate of harassment and assault and urge professional archaeological organizations to document sexual harassment and assault to mitigate the effects on their members and on the discipline as a whole.
A major problem facing North American approaches to historical archaeology is the exclusionary manner in which the discipline is defined. By confining historical archaeology to the era of capitalism and colonialism, we declare that the indigenous histories of many areas of the globe are of no interest to such an intellectual agenda. If we practice an historical archaeology that only valorizes the colonial experience, then what happens to history making that engaged cultures in the pre-capitalist and pre-modern era? Such approaches separate the histories of people in Africa from those of the West, and, is in effect, academic apartheid. To remedy this disjuncture, we interrogate how historical archaeology may escape the bounds of implicit racism in its denial of historicity before literacy. We suggest that breaking the chains of exclusion is the only way to realize an inclusive archaeology sensitive to all history making projects.
Social institutions such as the water-powered grain mills of Ottoman Cyprus are elaborately interconnected with a wide range of human and non-human players, from millers and villagers to water, gradient, stone and climate. When participants recognize their mutual dependencies and operate according to social and environmental limits, then following Ivan Illich we can call these watermills convivial tools. The European-owned sugar plantations, mills and refineries of medieval Cyprus, by contrast, divided and alienated their workforce, and their demands for water, labour, soil and fuel surpassed what their landscape and society could provide. They are, then, unconvivial tools. Conviviality is always precarious: it needs continual negotiation, conflict and compromise, as well as an acceptance of the mutual dependence of all participants, non-human and human. This politics of conviviality is particularly urgent in times of social and ecological crisis.
This article is the product of an intercultural archaeological project which main goal and praxis is to promote and empower indigenous voices and knowledge in contemporary Argentina, in a context of re-emergence of indigenous identities and organizations after decades of invisibilization and denial. Here we explore the past by combining two sources of knowledge: the archaeological one (with its theories and methods) and the indigenous knowledge (based on a non-Western ontology and informed by oral traditions, cosmological observations, practical know-hows, and the experience acquired by dwelling in the indigenous territory). To accomplish this task, the graphic representations that the Diaguita communities of the North Calchaquí Valley (Argentina) painted on their pots and engraved on rocks during the late intermediate period (AD 1000-1450) is examined and discussed. We claim that analysing prehistoric material culture from these two perspectives and sources of knowledge allows the production of richer, plural, and better-informed narratives of the past.
The past 30 years have witnessed a radical shift in European politics, as new far-right wing parties have entered national parliaments. Driven by discontent, fear and the notion of cultural struggle, they have gradually come to twist the political conversation around their core issues. For many far-right parties, cultural heritage is one such issue. While this ought to put them on the radar of scholars studying heritage politics, the topic of far-right heritage policy remains largely unexplored. This article seeks to ignite this field of enquiry by taking a closer look at what far-right heritage policies actually look like. Focus is set on three Scandinavian far-right parties with seats in national parliaments: the Danish People’s Party, the Progress Party in Norway and the Sweden Democrats. By examining the notion of heritage put forth in their party manifestos and the heritage priorities expressed in their parliamentary budget proposals, we consider the weight of their rhetoric.
Harmful environmental consequences of growth have been rigorously documented and widely publicized throughout the past half-century. Yet, the quantity of matter and energy used by human economies continues to increase by the minute, while governments and businesses continue to promise and to prioritize further economic growth. Such a paradox raises questions about how we humans change course. This introduction to a Special Section offers a new theoretical approach to change, together with glimpses of adaptations underway around the world. It directs attention away from individual decision-making and toward systems of culture and power through which socialized humans and socioecological worlds are (re)produced, sustained and adapted. Potential for transformative change is found in habitual practices through which skills, perspectives, denials and desires are viscerally embodied, and in cultural systems (economic, religious, gender and other) that govern those practices and make them meaningful. Case studies reviewed illuminate diverse communities acting to maintain old and to forge new moral and material worlds that prioritize wellbeing, equity and sustainability rather than expansion. This article endeavors to galvanize change by conceptualizing degrowth, by decolonizing worldviews of expansionist myths and values, and by encouraging connections between science and activism, north and south. Key words: degrowth, transition, climate change, socioecological systems
This article draws on interviews, observations, and surveys from two mixed-methods sociological studies of people's relationships to paid and unpaid work to argue that the concept of the work ethic is a fruitful entrypoint for exploring critical issues of work, leisure and consumption in rural places, and indeed anywhere there are efforts to realize degrowth strategies. Then, I survey some of the major themes about work in a selection of widely-cited degrowth writings and argue that the work ethic could use more attention—particularly the question of how the dominant work ethic at any place and time might constrain or enable degrowth as a political-ecological aspiration. This question is actually a hopeful one, because it suggests that in-depth studies of instances where something other than the Protestant, capitalist (i.e. expansion-oriented) work ethic dominates can (and already do!) show us the kinds of culturally-embedded relationships to work that are complimentary to a degrowth agenda. Moreover, such studies show that alternative modes of working are viable. In other words, sociological and anthropological studies can provide empirical evidence that vibrant, meaningful human life can continue in the absence of constant economic growth. Keywords: Degrowth, employment, work, work ethic, sociology, anthropology, rural
Humanity faces the challenge of how to achieve a high quality of life for over 7 billion people without destabilizing critical planetary processes. Using indicators designed to measure a ‘safe and just’ development space, we quantify the resource use associated with meeting basic human needs, and compare this to downscaled planetary boundaries for over 150 nations. We find that no country meets basic needs for its citizens at a globally sustainable level of resource use. Physical needs such as nutrition, sanitation, access to electricity and the elimination of extreme poverty could likely be met for all people without transgressing planetary boundaries. However, the universal achievement of more qualitative goals (for example, high life satisfaction) would require a level of resource use that is 2–6 times the sustainable level, based on current relationships. Strategies to improve physical and social provisioning systems, with a focus on sufficiency and equity, have the potential to move nations towards sustainability, but the challenge remains substantial. Achieving a high quality of life within the biophysical limits of the planet is a significant challenge. This study quantifies the resource use associated with meeting basic human needs, compares it to downscaled planetary boundaries for over 150 nations and finds that no country meets its citizens’ basic needs sustainably.
Although the future is mentioned frequently in overarching aims and visions, and it is a major drive in the daily work of archaeological heritage managers and indeed heritage professionals more generally, it remains unclear precisely how an overall commitment to the future can best inform specific heritage practices. It seems that most archaeologists and other heritage professionals cannot easily express how they conceive of the future they work for, and how their work will impact on that future. The future tends to remain implicit in daily practice which operates in a continuing, rolling present. The authors argue that this needs to change because present-day heritage management may be much less beneficial for the future than we commonly expect.
A recent surge in interest in the application of anarchist theory to archaeology follows from earlier work in the field of anarchic anthropology. Published work in both anarchic archaeology and anthropology has tended to make little use of the large and challenging body of literature created by members of anarchist political and philosophical movements over the last 180 years. This paper explores a sample of themes from anarchist literature that intersect with the interests of archaeologists. It is argued that ideas such as the anarchist use of surrealism, the anarchist take on environmentalism and radical anarchist history might all provide useful inspiration to archaeologists. It is clear however that the nature of the alternative philosophies utilized by anarchists will not make incorporating the work into archaeology a straightforward task, and archaeologists themselves are not exempt from the critical analysis of anarchists.
In recent years, the purpose and objectives of ethnoarchaeology have been called into question. In this paper, we propose that ethnoarchaeology might best be considered a form of ‘slow science’ that works to counterbalance ‘big science/fast science’ approaches in archaeology. We consider the interpretative challenges facing archaeology and the risks posed by a shift to fast science approaches that emphasize large-scale, strategic and analytically focused ‘big data’ analyses. We draw on recent literatures that define ‘désexcellence’ and ‘slow science’ approaches, which forefront ethically driven and collaborative research, and suggest that ethnoarchaeology might be well positioned to redefine itself as a form of slow science. Doing so, however, requires redefining ethnoarchaeology’s field objectives and its relations to research subjects.
Many archaeologists are currently stuck in a mindset in which attention is paid exclusively to ideas that are ‘new’ and ‘revolutionary’. This fetishization of the ‘new’ leads us down a dangerous road as it promotes uncritical disdain of old ideas which remain valid and it advocates fads from neighbouring disciplines which are methodologically vapid and philosophically dubious. The objective of this paper is to question whether archaeology requires constant ‘paradigmatic change’ and my answer to this question is no. By constantly altering the status quo, archaeologists are promoting a culture in which theoretical ‘newness’ is given the spotlight and ideas are considered valid as long as they are original. Against this, I recommend a more critical view of new ideas and a revision of old ones – a culture which prioritizes the quality of archaeological theories regardless of whether they are new or old.
Drawing on examples from the West (Flanders) and developing East (Siberia, Russia), this paper investigates the subtle and often overlooked entanglements between the nation state and archaeology. Drawing on careful ethnographic assessments mapping the impact of the state on archaeological practice in Russia and Flanders, this paper illustrates that we need to transcend our traditional focus on nationalism and also look at the impact of bureaucratic procedures and documents. These at first sight benign systems of government greatly enmesh archaeologists with the nation state and its myriad of agendas, ultimately impacting both heritage management and academic research.
Recent developments in archaeological thought and practice involve a seemingly disparate selection of ideas that can be collected and organized as contributing to an anti-authoritarian, “punk” archaeology. This includes the contemporary archaeology of punk rock, the DIY and punk ethos of archaeological labor practices and community involvement, and a growing interest in anarchist theory as a productive way to understand communities in the past. In this article, I provide a greater context to contemporary punk, DIY, and anarchist thought in academia, unpack these elements in regard to punk archaeology, and propose a practice of punk archaeology as a provocative and productive counter to fast capitalism and structural violence.
This paper reviews the main arguments used to justify and legitimize contract archaeology worldwide. By seeing them contextually, however, those arguments are stripped bare, unveiling their articulation with the logic of modernity and capitalism. The paper examines them in the specific case of Brazil, only to draw general conclusions thereafter.
The recent (2008- present) crisis of financial capitalism is having an enormous impact on the lives of working people all over the world, but it has also hit the largest sector of archaeological activity which has been called commercial archaeology, or contract or developer-funded archaeology. Despite its detrimental effects, the situation has provided an opening for a radical rethinking and reflection on the underlying assumptions of this sector, its ethical and political premises, its long-term viability, and more importantly, the need for alternatives. Within this context, this paper aims to show that the logic of capital was embedded in the process of the constitution of modernist archaeology, right from the start. It also demonstrates the highly problematic operation of commercial archaeology for archaeologists, material culture, and the vast majority of the public. It proposes that what it needs to change radically is the foundational logic of modernist archaeology which makes it part of the framework of capital: its fetishization of things, and their treatment as autonomous objects, divorced from the relationships, flows and connections that have led to their constitution. The paper concludes by outlining briefly an alter-modern archaeology that resides in the in-between spaces, rather than on objectified, reified, and thus easily commodified entities.
Despite Australia’s vastness, pressures on land use have resulted in the rapid growth and associated urban development particularly in Australia’s major cities, such as Sydney and Melbourne. New South Wales’ (NSW) State government has addressed key political issues, such as housing shortages, through the release of green field land surrounding the existing urban fringe.
In Sydney, the recent green field land releases saw a ‘green-belt’ of agricultural land, previously established in the 1950s as a buffer to urban development, released for housing development. These high-level land releases were undertaken without specific consideration of Aboriginal heritage sites or places and have, in general, led to a holistic and widespread impact to previously unrecorded Aboriginal heritage sites. The social impact on Aboriginal communities has been substantial, because Aboriginal sites and places have been destroyed through soil stripping, authorised by the issue of impact permits. In general the local Aboriginal communities have not been able to stop or influence the course of development, and as a result, in some areas, Aboriginal heritage sites are becoming scare due to cumulative impacts.
The East Leppington precinct, in southwest Sydney, was approached from a different perspective. This land release and consequential development sought to understand the Aboriginal and historical heritage values inherent in the area prior to commencing the urban planning process.
The information from the analysis of the Aboriginal cultural landscape, archaeological excavations and community consultation underpinned a values assessment that mapped Aboriginal cultural values, including intangible social values. This mapping was used to develop an urban residential design that respected and incorporated key heritage aspects—both Aboriginal and historical. The outcome was a residential design that the Aboriginal community had influenced, and resulted in the conservation of key cultural heritage values.
This paper described the processes undertaken, along with the key issues experienced. It is the aim of the paper to demonstrate how land development may occur in a compatible manner when Aboriginal cultural heritage values and places are present.
Since the 1980s, privatisation of the archaeological sector mirrored its contextual political economy. After the financial crisis of 2008, and its devastating effects on the professional community, this system has been subject to more and more criticism. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the highly problematic setup of privatised archaeology for practitioners, material culture, and the vast majority of the public. The archaeological systems in a number of countries, including Canada, Australia, and Japan are explored. A radical change from the dominant logic of capital, towards cooperative and collaborative alternatives, viable in the long-term, and relinked to people, in the present is suggested as a more feasible alternative.
Archaeological data provide a critical perspective on the emergent relationships between Melanesians and Europeans during the mid-nineteenth century. Particularly important to the discussion are the native landscapes within which Europeans settled. As part of a larger exploration of early missionary settlement in southern Vanuatu, archaeologists working closely with local fieldworkers surveyed the native villages at Kwaraka and Anuikaraka, south Tanna Island. These archaeological settlements are notable for their well-preserved stone architecture, rare on Tanna, and their association with local oral traditions concerning inter-island exchange and early Melanesian engagements with Christianity. Archaeological research at Kwaraka has begun to explore the long-term settlement dynamics of these sites, as initial excavations have indicated features dating from the seventeenth through the mid-twentieth century. While direct evidence of nineteenth-century habitation was limited, preliminary results suggest European goods were rare at these sites, while also revealing information about more prominent local exchange networks that persisted through the colonial era. Archaeological approaches that span precolonial and colonial periods can challenge orthodox models for the emergence of modernity, while also providing important long-term perspectives on local historical trajectories.
In a 1997 keynote address to the Society for Hawaiian Archaeology, Patrick V. Kirch assessed the development of Hawaiian archaeology, past, present, and future. Kirch lamented the shrinking role research institutions played in Hawaiian archaeology, and challenged archaeologists to be more engaged with descendant communities. The landscape of Hawaiian archaeology has changed since Kirch’s 1997 assessment, and more partnerships between archaeologists and Hawaiian community groups have developed since that time. This paper presents an example of community-based archaeology, in which a grassroots group seeks to protect a heiau (place of worship) threatened by harbor expansion. The assembled group includes Kānaka Maoli (Native Hawaiian) elders and community members, students, State archaeologists, and Kānaka Maoli archaeologists. A brief contextual background of the sociopolitical history of Hawaiian archaeology is provided, as well as coverage of the development of the project and its potential to serve as an example for similar community efforts elsewhere in the islands.
It is now something of a cliché to talk about the sale of Indigenous lands for what is seen as a pittance in contemporary terms, and to ask whether ‘the natives’ really understood what was being sold. A variety of sources, from archival to archaeological and oral historical, can be brought to bear on the colonial history of relationships to land. Missionary records from Tanna and Erromango, Vanuatu, provide evidence for the ways that people in the past and the present marked places on the landscape in different media to carve out political, economic, and religious relationships with the islands in which they lived, and the exchanges that took place as part of this process. Reflections on contemporary relationships produced in the context of archaeological fieldwork provide further materials for considering these ongoing dynamics.
Après 18 ans de travail, Georges Bataille écrit la Part Maudite en 1949. Cet ouvrage peu connu est pourtant majeur, tant est rare une telle lucidité chez un auteur. Anticipant à la fois la crise de l'énergie tout en donnant une explication écologique aux deux guerres mondiales, il fait appel à de nombreuses disciplines (biologie, physique, sociologie) pour nous désigner la part maudite de la richesse matérielle produite. Pour autant, il ne sombre pas dans le pessimisme en soulignant la singularité de la nature humaine par rapport aux autres espèces vivantes.
This article considers the impact of both historical and digital transhuman practices in archaeology with an eye towards recent conversations concerning punk archaeology, slow archaeology, and an ‘archaeology of care’. Drawing on Ivan Illich, Jacques Ellul, and Gilles Deleuze, the article suggests that current trends in digital practices risk alienating archaeological labour and de-territorializing archaeological work.
Collaboration is considered a panacea in North American archaeology today-a cure-all that is claimed to have radically transformed the discipline by bringing about equality and decolonization. Such assertions are problematic on many fronts, especially because collaborative archaeology has undergone little critical assessment. Based on our analysis of how the practice is defined, how social power is construed and measured, and how the goal of decolonization is conceptualized, we show collaboration to be a colonial whitewash that appropriates the methods and values of Indigenous archaeology. Rather than transformation and liberation, collaborative archaeology is ultimately rooted in cooptation and dependence. We contend that rather than decolonizing, collaborative archaeology is a steadfastly colonial enterprise.
The University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), Gender Equity Project aims to assess the state of mentorship, equity, and sexual harassment within the California archaeological community. Using the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) as our target population, we administered two surveys in 2016 designed to address those themes. We frame the project in terms of research related to equity issues, outline our primary research questions, and present the demographic patterns from the surveys. Results include gender-based pay discrepancies, preference by women for cultural resource management (CRM) over academic jobs, history of inadequate mentorship for women and underrepresented minorities, and slightly higher rates of sexual harassment reported by women in CRM than in academia. We discuss how the impacts of these issues extend beyond the lives of individuals to affect the nature of the overall discipline.
This article advocates for archaeological investigation of sustained colonialism that examines the implications of Native American negotiations with multiple waves of foreigners over the course of many decades, if not centuries. The study of native confrontations with successive groups of intruders, who often represented a diverse range of colonial programs and interests, involves analyses of not only indigenous encounters with first-wave colonists but also their entanglements with later colonists, particularly settler colonists. This will provide the necessary diachronic approach to consider the cumulative effects and implications of multiple colonial intrusions on specific tribes and how tribal negotiations with earlier colonial enterprises may have influenced and shaped their responses to later settler colonists. This article presents a case study of one such approach for the study of sustained colonialism that examines native entanglements with mercantile and settler colonists in northern California.
Collaborative archaeological research with indigenous communities, in addition to fostering culturally specific, community-centred research programmes, also encourages meaningful shifts in archaeological research on the ground. Field Methods in Indigenous Archaeology (FMIA), a community-based research partnership between the University of Washington and the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, highlights these dual possibilities. The project seeks to strengthen the tribe’s capacity to care for cultural resources, to recover histories of survivance on the Grand Ronde Reservation, and to develop a low-impact, Grand Ronde archaeological methodology. These goals are realized through a summer field school, which joins comprehensive field instruction with overviews of tribal historic preservation and engagement with the Grand Ronde community. FMIA encapsulates the ethical imperative to work with, for, and by indigenous communities in archaeological research and the opportunities such work brings in transforming archaeological method, theory, and practice.
The organization of archaeological fieldwork often resembles a military-style campaign structured around rigid, top-down hierarchies. This is reflected in many aspects of current practice, including the ultimate authority of the site director, the use of excavation methodologies that remove the act of interpretation from field archaeologists, and the general deskilling and reification of archaeological labor in fieldwork. Though there have been several examples of resistance to this hierarchical model we maintain that a sustained critique could stem from an unexpected source: the creation of communities that model anarchist principles through the implementation of the single context methodology in archaeology. In this article we explore the potential for anarchist praxis in archaeological fieldwork and the implications of anarchist thought on the issues of authority and non-alienation of labor in a neoliberal landscape.
This unique book offers a theoretical framework for historical archaeology that explicitly relies on network theory. Charles E. Orser, Jr., demonstrates the need to examine the impact of colonialism, Eurocentrism, capitalism, and modernity on all archaeological sites inhabited after 1492 and shows how these large-scale forces create a link among all the sites. Orser investigates the connections between a seventeenth-century runaway slave kingdom in Palmares, Brazil and an early nineteenth-century peasant village in central Ireland. Studying artifacts, landscapes, and social inequalities in these two vastly different cultures, the author explores how the archaeology of fugitive Brazilian slaves and poor Irish farmers illustrates his theoretical concepts. His research underscores how network theory is largely unknown in historical archaeology and how few historical archaeologists apply a global perspective in their studies. A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World features data and illustrations from two previously unknown sites and includes such intriguing findings as the provenance of ancient Brazilian smoking pipes that will be new to historical archaeologists.
Degrowth has evolved within a decade from an activist movement into a multi-disciplinary academic paradigm. However, an overview taking stock of the peer-refereed degrowth literature is yet missing. Here, we review 91 articles that were published between 2006 and 2015. We find that the academic degrowth discourse occupies a small but expanding niche at the intersection of social and applied environmental sciences. The discourse is shaped by authors from high-income, mainly Mediterranean, countries. Until 2012, articles largely constitute conceptual essays endorsed by normative claims. More recently, degrowth has branched out into modelling, empirical assessments, and the study of concrete implementations. Authors tend to agree in that economic growth cannot be sustained ad infinitum on a resource constraint planet and that degrowth requires far reaching societal change. Whether degrowth should be considered as a collectively consented choice or an environmentally-imposed inevitability constitutes a major debate among degrowth thinkers. We argue that the academic discourse could benefit from rigid hypotheses testing through input-output modelling, material flow analysis, life-cycle assessments, or social surveys. By analyzing the potentials for non-market value creation and identifying concrete well-being benefits, the degrowth discourse could receive wider public support and contribute to a paradigmatic change in the social sciences.
The concept of middle-range theory, arising over three decades ago in sociology, is reviewed. The concept was proposed as an approach to theorizing, urging consolidation of high-order theories with low-order empirical studies. The critical elements in such hierarchies are theories of a middle-range of abstraction. However, most current conceptions of “middle-range theory” in archaeology are far more narrowly conceived. Derived primarily from Binford’s work, they continue the New Archaeology’s attempt to develop a materialist epistemology for archaeology. In this view, principles of site formation processes are nearly synonymous with “middle-range theory.” The dangers to theory building of this approach are outlined. Examples of middle-range theory that expand our capacity for explanation of cultural behavior are presented.
Periodically archaeologists turn their gaze inwards towards their own field, to consider it as a craft activity or as a community of interest in its own right. The phrase ‘archaeological community’ is one widely used but rarely defined, and there is always a tendency towards the division of archaeology into a variety of distinct specialisms: yet one of the major aspects of academic life is in the construction of communities of shared interests. Here I draw upon my own experiences of encouraging others to become involved in efforts to develop those areas of enquiry that interest me. This includes the construction of formal networks but also more ‘covert’ activities by inserting contributions into conferences and sometimes publications where they may not have been initially welcomed. It was awkward and slightly dangerous work, especially early in my career, and I am not sure it always achieved what I intended.
The underlying notion for this article is that archaeology requires an amalgamation of humanities and science, and of narrative and scientific knowledge. The need for this fusion has arisen in a context in which contemporary society is experiencing major changes in epistemics, aesthetics and fashion; an increase in virtual experiences; and an economic crisis. I refer to this situation as the neo-baroque, a condition that is elusive and partially ambiguous. This social context (perhaps the final crisis of modernity), and the breakdown of this integration in pragmatic terms, call for a repoliticization of science.
The European Association of Archaeologists has long fostered critical analysis of the relationship between archaeology and politics, particularly the politics of national, regional and supra-regional identities. Although the role of nationalism in the birth of archaeology as a discipline is well recognized, the events of the past few years – from the referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, to the movement for secession in eastern Ukraine, and the rise of explicitly nationalist political movements across the continent – suggest that the (re)formulation of national identities is likely to continue to have major implications both for our interpretation of the past and for the practice of archaeology in the present. In light of this, the
Archaeological dialogues
editorial board organized a round table at the EAA meeting in Glasgow in September 2015 to explore the extent to which institutional, legislative and funding structures as well as political and cultural imperatives continue to bind our discipline into the construction of nationalist narratives, and this more or less in spite of long-standing critical debates within the discipline itself that for decades have problematized the relationship. Are we caught in a ‘can't-live-with-and-can't-live-without’ situation? While explicitly nationalist archaeologies have become almost obsolete in the European academies, we rarely contemplate the impact of nationalism on funding or the definition and protection of cultural heritage, for example. Several of the following papers suggest that without the nation state's involvement, the vicissitudes of global capitalism would result in a situation where it would be extremely difficult to adequately protect our ‘heritage’, however that is defined.
Every economics textbook says the same thing: Money was invented to replace onerous and complicated barter systems—to relieve ancient people from having to haul their goods to market. The problem with this version of history? There’s not a shred of evidence to support it.
Here anthropologist David Graeber presents a stunning reversal of conventional wisdom. He shows that 5,000 years ago, during the beginning of the agrarian empires, humans have used elaborate credit systems. It is in this era, Graeber shows, that we also first encounter a society divided into debtors and creditors.
With the passage of time, however, virtual credit money was replaced by gold and silver coins—and the system as a whole began to decline. Interest rates spiked and the indebted became slaves. And the system perpetuated itself with tremendously violent consequences, with only the rare intervention of kings and churches keeping the system from spiraling out of control. Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a fascinating chronicle of this little known history—as well as how it has defined human history, and what it means for the credit crisis of the present day and the future of our economy.
Could archaeologists benefit contemporary cultures and be a factor in solving world problems? Can archaeologists help individuals? Can archaeologists change the world? These questions form the root of "archaeology activism" or "activist archaeology": using archaeology to advocate for and affect change in contemporary communities. Archaeologists currently change the world through the products of their archaeological research that contribute to our collective historical and cultural knowledge. Their work helps to shape and reshape our perceptions of the past and our understanding of written history. Archaeologists affect contemporary communities through the consequences of their work as they become embroiled in controversies over negotiating the past and the present with native peoples. Beyond the obvious economic contributions to local communities caused by heritage tourism established on the research of archaeologists at cultural sites, archaeologists have begun to use the process of their work as a means to benefit the public and even advocate for communities. In this volume, Stottman and his colleagues examine the various ways in which archaeologists can and do use their research to forge a partnership with the past and guide the ongoing dialogue between the archaeological record and the various contemporary stakeholders. They draw inspiration and guidance from applied anthropology, social history, public history, heritage studies, museum studies, historic preservation, philosophy, and education to develop an activist approach to archaeology-theoretically, methodologically, and ethically. © 2010 by The University of Alabama Press. All rights reserved.
In the last 40 years archaeology in Brazil has grown in the wake of development projects, covered by the objectivity of techniques and neutrality, and isolated from conflicts and environmental injustices associated with such projects. The arguments on this paper revolve around narratives of rock art from a Brazilian region where people were relocated after their displacement by a large scale development project in the 1970s; they seek to discuss the environmental management model adopted in Brazil and how professional archaeologists act within it.
I herein discuss contract archaeology in the Brazilian Amazon and its relation with heritage and local communities. I deal with the asymmetries produced by large-scale development projects, legitimized by the State and reified by archaeology. By examining a heritage education project I conclude that these initiatives instead of promoting social inclusion through heritage may in fact deepen inequality. This case study discusses the impacts of these activities at Serra Pelada, a village of gold miners where the dramatic violation of human rights demonstrates that the role of archaeology goes far beyond its epistemic goals.
This paper examines the historical development of contract archaeology in South Africa, placing it in a trajectory of local archaeological thought and practice. In doing so, it sets out to do three things. The first is to consider how metropolitan theory “travels,” takes root, and has particular, local effects as part of a disciplinary ordering of knowledge and practice. In South Africa, the advent of contract archaeology around the time of the 1994 elections was ironic in the sense that it foreclosed on the notion of a “people’s archaeology,” replacing it with forms of corporate accountability and models of business best practice. The second broad aim is to think about what is at stake in the politics of memory after apartheid, and the effects of contract archaeology in mediating and mitigating popular struggles around rights, resources and representation. I argue that, in many cases, the function of contract archaeology is to discipline and school such struggles, diverting them along approved tracks and bureaucratic channels. The third is to think about how contract archaeology functions as part of global coloniality, as an instigator and enabler of global designs. I briefly discuss the case of the World Archaeological Congress and Rio Tinto, as an example of the co-opting of a global organization and of a language of engagement. My argument throughout is that contract archaeology recapitulates the essential coloniality of disciplinary archaeology, presenting it with a new face and a contemporary disguise appropriate to global, postcolonial times.
This paper shows that contract archaeology activities geared to large mining projects in Argentina articulates with a global discourse on heritage that seeks to patrimonialize places of Indigenous memory. However, these hegemonic moves for the creation of a sense of the “real”—which positions mining as an unavoidable and even desired “reality” and mining corporations as sensitive and responsible actors—are confronted by counter-hegemonic forces, among which current narratives of aboriginality are prominent.
Archaeology is a form of disaster capitalism, characterized by specialist managers whose function is the clearance of Indigenous heritage from the landscape, making way for economic development. When presented with this critique, archaeologists respond strongly and emotionally, defending archaeology. Anger emanates from and revolves around the assertion that archaeologists are not just complicit in but integral to the destruction of the very heritage they claim to protect. In what we believe is an act of philosophical and economic self-preservation, mainstream archaeologists actively forget the relationship between archaeology, violence, and the global heritage crisis. Securely defended by its practitioners, archaeology therefore remains an imperial force grounded in the ideology of growth, development, and progress.