scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Book

The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present

01 Jan 1997-
TL;DR: Sian Jones as mentioned in this paper argues for a fundamentally different view of ethnicity, as a complex dynamic form of identification, requiring radical changes in archaeological analysis and interpretation, and presents a comprehensive and critical synthesis of recent theories of ethnicity in the human sciences.
Abstract: The question of ethnicity is highly controversial in contemporary archaeology. Indigenous and nationalist claims to territory, often rely on reconstructions of the past based on the traditional identification of 'cultures' from archaeological remains. Sian Jones responds to the need for a reassessment of the ways in which social groups are identified in the archaeological record, with a comprehensive and critical synthesis of recent theories of ethnicity in the human sciences. In doing so, she argues for a fundamentally different view of ethnicity, as a complex dynamic form of identification, requiring radical changes in archaeological analysis and interpretation.
Citations
More filters
Book
04 Jan 2011
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present 31 articles written in Spanish and English depending on the national origin of their author and the author's country of origin, and the authors discuss the following topics:
Abstract: 31 articles written in Spanish and English depending on the national origin of their author.

12 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: There has been much discussion in the past decade regarding identifying Israel in the archaeological remains in ancient Palestine as mentioned in this paper, and the Iron I period (ca. 1200-1000 B.C.), in particular, poses grea...
Abstract: There has been much discussion in the past decade regarding identifying Israel in the archaeological remains in ancient Palestine. The Iron I period (ca. 1200-1000 B. C.), in particular, poses grea...

12 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Krish Seetah1
TL;DR: This article explored the dynamic nature of inter-group interaction on Mauritius, and highlighted the nuanced nature of how different peoples arrived and made the island their home, and also delved into the essentially uncharted domain of the archaeology of indentured labour.
Abstract: This article supplements current dialogue on the archaeology of slavery, offering an Indian Ocean counterpoint to a topic that has largely focused on the Atlantic world. It also delves into the essentially uncharted domain of the archaeology of indentured labour. New plural societies, characterized by cultural hybridity, were created around the world as a consequence of labour diasporas in the late historic period. What do these societies look like during the process of nation building and after independence? Can we study this development through archaeology? Focusing on Mauritius, this paper discusses the complexities of the island, and how it can be representative of similar newly formed plural societies in the Indian Ocean. During French and British imperial rule, the island served as an important trading post for a range of European imperial powers. These varied groups initiated the movement and settlement of African, Indian and Chinese transplanted communities. By exploring the dynamic nature of inter-group interaction on Mauritius, this paper emphasizes the nuanced nature of how different peoples arrived and made the island their home. Mauritius played a vital role in the transportation of forced and free labour, both within and beyond this oceanic world, and offers an important viewpoint from which to survey the ways in which historical archaeology can improve our understanding of the broader archaeo-historical processes of which these diasporas were an integral feature. The paper focuses on the outcomes of settlement, as viewed through the complex practices that underpin local food culture, the use and development of language and the way materials are employed for the expression of identity. The article also traces the roots of contemporary cultural retention for indentured labourers to administrative decisions made by the British, and ultimately explores how heritage and language can provide a powerful lens on mechanisms of cultural expression. In addition to illustrating the nuanced and multifaceted nature of group interaction on Mauritius itself, this article raises an issue of broader relevance—the need for historical archaeologists to give greater consideration to the Indian Ocean, rather than focusing on the Atlantic world. This would allow us to achieve a more informed understanding of European slave trading and associated systems of labour migration within a more global framework.

12 citations

01 Jan 2012
TL;DR: Archaeology and linguistics both have multiple methodologies and research materials, some fundamental differences can be discerned between them already from the outset as discussed by the authors, while linguistics and archaeological research materials almost always have an absolute chronology in years, whereas linguistic shifts, changes and vocabulary layers can, in most cases, only be dated relatively, in a relation to other shifts and changes.
Abstract: Archaeology and linguistics both investigate the past of human populations. They offer an opportunity to reach the past of mankind thousands of years before the present day and to obtain information on human groups of a particular period and region, their forms of livelihood, societal structures, beliefs and intergroup relations. While linguistics and archaeology both have multiple methodologies and research materials, some fundamental differences can be discerned between them already from the outset. Whereas a linguist studies (mainly) mental and portable cultural heritage, the archaeological material is spatial and has a particular location. Linguistics studies cultural concepts and a human world view that is related to the physical world through a process of cultural conceptualization, whereas archaeology investigates practical and often neglected sides of human life – material remains and waste. Archaeological research materials almost always have an absolute chronology in years, whereas linguistic shifts, changes and vocabulary layers can, in most cases, only be dated relatively, in a relation to other shifts, changes and layers. Notwithstanding considerable differences in both methodologies and research materials, the results of archaeology and linguistics have often been employed together to create a coherent narrative of the past. The goal in both disciplines has often been seen in the reconstruction of large-scale social models of past human groups, their complex interaction and the change of such actors in time and space. It is obvious, however, that there are many caveats to such an interdisciplinary approach. The authors of this article, a linguist and an archaeologist, share the confidence that these two disciplines can indeed be used together fruitfully in the investigation of the human past, yet they also believe that many of those treatments that claim to combine their results, in fact, misrepresent the one or the other, or seek overly clear-cut correlations between research materials that,

12 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the concepts of embodiment and intentionality are used to resolve the tension between entirely individualistic or collectivistic approaches by turning to social models that incorporate a more sophisticated understanding of a phenomenologically embodied, culturally embedded subject of the past through the central notion of intentionality.
Abstract: Within archaeology there is an increasing drive to incorporate the concepts of “'the individual,” “agency,” and “subjective experience” into our interpretations of the past. At the same time, there is a growing backlash against this increasing reliance on individualistic interpretive frameworks questioning the theoretical, methodological, practical, and political values of a focus on the individual. Through the concepts of embodiment and intentionality, this article will suggest that we may begin to resolve some of the tension between entirely individualistic or collectivistic approaches by turning to social models that incorporate a more sophisticated understanding of a phenomenologically embodied, culturally embedded subject of the past through the central notion of intentionality. In turning to intentionality as an interpretive framework, this article will examine a brief historical example in order to critically evaluate the currently popular approach to indigenous intentionality through the c...

12 citations