Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T12:25:34.833Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpreting Archaeological Evidence in the Anthropocene. Incidentality and Meaning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2020

Laurent Olivier
Laurent Olivier*
Affiliation:
National Museum of Archaeology, Château, Place Charles de Gaulle, 78105 Saint-Germain-en-Laye, France Email: laurent.olivier@culture.gouv.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The post-processual archaeology that dominated the scholarship of Anglo-American academics in the 1980s and 1990s now lies moribund, done in by an ‘ontological turn’ in the study of anthropology that began some 15 or 20 years ago. Anthropos is no longer the sole focal point; human beings no longer occupy the central place in our understanding of cultures and societies. As contemporary anthropologists have noted, human actions and ideas are not the lone contributors to the creation of a civilization's structures and objects or the development of societal forms. Other kinds of ‘life’, a variety of other non-human organisms contribute to their creation as well. They most notably include places and what we generally refer to as things: objects, constructions and materials. In effect, they include all the organic and non-organic components of the world about us. These are the ‘beings’, both animate and inanimate, that ‘make’ the world. Moreover, ‘things’ are no longer regarded as pure inert ‘objects’, only created or transformed by the will of humans or the force of their technology. The present transformations of the Anthropocene, which is producing climatic changes at a global scale, are pushing us to consider that ‘natural’ events—such as floods or hurricanes—may be the direct result of human actions and material ‘things’—such as the earth and the oceans—may be active agents of change. In other words, they are also the subjects of history.

Type
Special Section
Information
Cambridge Archaeological Journal , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 160 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beck, U., 1992. Risk Society: Towards a new modernity. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Buchli, V. & Gavin, L., 2001. The archaeology of alienation: a late twentieth-century British council house, in Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past, eds Buchli, V. & Lucas, G.. London/New York: Routledge, 158–67.Google Scholar
Burström, M., 2012. Treasured Memories. Tales of buried belongings in wartime Estonia. Lund: Nordic Academic Press.Google Scholar
Early, R., 2013. Excavating the World War II prisoner of war camp at La Glacerie, Cherbourg, Normandy, in Prisoners of War: Archaeology, memory and heritage of 19th- and 20th-century mass internment, eds Mytum, H. & Carr, G.. New York (NY): Springer, 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamel, J.-F., 2006. Revenances de l'histoire. Répétition, narrativité, modernité [Haunted History. Repetition, narrativity, modernity]. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Hartog, F., 2015. Regimes of Historicity. Presentism and experience of time (trans. Brown, S.). New York (NY): Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kohn, E., 2013. How Forests Think. Toward an anthropology beyond the human. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B., 1993. We Have Never Been Modern (trans. Portier, C.). Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 2017. Facing Gaia. Eight lectures on the new climatic regime (trans. Portier, C.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Legendre, J.-P., 2017. The archaeological study of French World War II internment camps. The example of the prisoner of war camp in Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy (Meurthe-et-Moselle department), in Clashes of Time. The contemporary past as a challenge for archaeology, eds Blaising, J.-M., Driessen, J., Legendre, J.-P. & Olivier, L.. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain, 47–61.Google Scholar
Letesson, Q. & Jusseret, S., 2017. The Maison du Mage project: surveying contemporary assemblages, in Clashes of Time. The Contemporary Past as a Challenge for Archaeology, eds Blaising, J.-M., Driessen, J., Legendre, J.-P. & Olivier, L.. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain, 79–120.Google Scholar
Olivier, L., 2012. The Dark Abyss of Time. Archaeology and memory (trans. Greenspan, A.). New York (NY): AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Olivier, L., 2013. The business of archaeology is the present, in Reclaiming Archaeology: Beyond the tropes of modernity, ed. Gonzalez-Ruibal, A.. London/New York: Routledge, 117–29.Google Scholar
Olivier, L., 2017a. I can't get no satisfaction: for an archaeology of the contemporary past, in Clashes of Time: The contemporary past as a challenge for archaeology, eds Blaising, J.-M., Driessen, J., Legendre, J.-P. & Olivier, L.. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain, 11–22.Google Scholar
Olivier, L., 2017b. La répétition dans les processus archéologiques [Repetition in archaeological processes]. Cliniques 14(2), 172–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivier, L., 2019. The future of archaeology in the age of Presentism. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 6(1), 16–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., 2010. In Defense of Things. Archaeology and the ontology of objects. Lanham (MD): AltaMira.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., Shanks, M., Webmoor, T. & Witmore, C., 2012. Archaeology: The discipline of things. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P.J. & McNeill, J., 2011. The anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 369(1938), 842–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tamm, M. & Olivier, L., 2019. Rethinking Historical Time. New approaches to Presentism. London/New York: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C., 2013. Which archaeology? A question of chronopolitics, in Reclaiming Archaeology: Beyond the tropes of modernity, ed. Gonzalez-Ruibal, A.. London/New York: Routledge, 130–44.Google Scholar
Witmore, C., 2014. Archaeology, the anthropocene and the hypanthropocene. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 1(1), 128–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C., 2017. Things are the grounds of all archaeology: notes on the Arvanitia Xenia, in Clashes of Time: The contemporary past as a challenge for archaeology, eds Blaising, J.-M., Driessen, J., Legendre, J.-P. & Olivier, L.. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain, 231–46.Google Scholar