CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES OF ARCHAEOLOGY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55877/cc.vol19.24Keywords:
Latvian and world archaeology, archaeological thought, current theoretical discussions, political activism, new challengesAbstract
This article is an attempt to understand the ongoing processes of global archaeology during the last two decades. The aim of this article is to identify the most talked-about concepts of the recent period. The article is intended as a retrospective, subjective reflection from the viewpoint of Latvian archaeologist on the latest period of global historiography, seeking to answer the following question: What key concepts are trending in the global archaeological thought, and do they resonate in Latvian archaeology? The author offers a critical view suggesting that the contemporary archaeological thought differs from the previous periods with pluralism, deep specialization and diversity of ideas as well as pronounced discursive radicalization in the form of unexpected criticism of capitalism in the Western intellectual world. The attempts to politicize the discipline is problematized. In the end, it is concluded that the theoretical framework of Latvian archaeology is more conservative than contemporary global archaeology. Even if some new ideas are adapted, it is still not possible to talk about Latvian archaeologist as a public figure, a social or political activist.Downloads
References
Bacus, A. E., Barker, A. W., Bonevich, J. D., Dunavan, S. N., Fitzhugh, J. B., Gold, D. L., Goldman-Finn, N. S., Griffin, W., Mudar, K. M. (eds.) (1993). A Gendered Past. A Critical Bibliography of Gender in Archaeology (Volume 25). Michigan: University of Michigan Museum of Anthropological Archaeology.
Bintliff, J. L., Pearce, M. (2011). The Death of Archaeological Theory? Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Borck, L., Sanger, M. C. (2017). An Introduction to Anarchism in Archaeology. The SAA Archaeological Record, No. 17 (1), pp. 9–16.
Brück, J. (2015). The value of archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology, No. 23, pp. 33–36.
Chiu, S., Tsang, Ch. (eds.) (2013). Archaeology and Sustainability. San Marcos: Center for Archaeological Studies.
Churm, Ph. A. (2018). Juncker opens exhibition to Karl Marx. Available: https://www.euronews.com/2018/05/04/juncker-opens-exhibition-to-karl-marx (viewed 11.10.2020).
Criado-Boado, F. (2016). President’s Brexit Presentation. Available: https://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/154703/1/160715_EAA2016-Vilnius_Brexit-session.pdf (viewed 12.01.2020).
Criado-Boado, F. (2018a). 24th EAA Annual Meeting in Barcelona – last message to participants. (sent by e-mail to EAA members 04.09.2018).
Criado-Boado, F. (2018b). Message from EAA President. (sent by e-mail to EAA members 21.12.2018).
Criado-Boado, F. (2019). 25 years after, EAA wish you 25 more successful “field” seasons. (sent by e-mail to EAA members 21.12.2019).
Criado-Boado, F. (2020). The day after Brexit. Available: https://www.e-a-a.org/EAA/Navigation_News/Brexit.aspx (viewed 21.12.2020).
Dawson, T., Nimura, C., López-Romero, E., Daire, M-Y. (eds.) (2017). Public Archaeology and Climate Change. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
de Ligt, L., Tacoma, L. E. (eds.) (2016). Migration and Mobility in the Early Roman Empire. (Studies in Global Social History, Studies in Global Migration History, Volume: 23/7). Leiden: Brill.
Driessen, J., Cunningham, T. (eds.) (2017). Crisis to Collapse. The Archaeology of Social Breakdown. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
Eddisford, D., Morgan, C. (2018). Single Context Archaeology as Anarchist Praxis. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology, No. 5 (2), pp. 245–254.
Estonian Institute of Historical Memory (2018). Participation of the European Commission’s leader in Marx’s birthday party is ignorance of victims of communism. Available: https://mnemosyne.ee/en/participation-of-the-european-commissionsleader-in-marxs-birthday-party-is-ignorance-of-victims-of-communism/ (viewed 10.02.2020).
Fahlander, F. (2012). Are we there yet? Archaeology and the postmodern in the new millennium. Current Swedish Archaeology, No. 20, pp. 109–129.
Fernández-Götz, M., Roymans, N. (eds.) (2017). Conflict Archaeology: Materialities of Collective Violence from Prehistory to Late Antiquity. (Themes in Contemporary Archaeology, Vol. 5). London: Routledge.
Gardner, A., Harrison, R. (2017). Brexit, Archaeology and Heritage: Reflections and Agendas. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, No. 27 (1), pp. 1–6.
Gatto, M. C., Mattingly, D. J., Ray, N., Sterry, M. (eds.) (2019). Burials, Migration and Identity in the Ancient Sahara and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Golubevs, D. (2019). Pēcpatiesības jēdziens ir pēcpatiesība. Available: https://profectus.lv/pecpatiesibas-jedziens-ir-pecpatiesiba/ (viewed 03.02.2020).
González-Ruibal, A., Moshenska, G. (eds.) (2015). Ethics and the Archaeology of Violence (Ethical Archaeologies: The Politics of Social Justice (2)). New York: Springer.
Gould, P. G. (2018). Empowering Communities through Archaeology and Heritage.
The Role of Local Governance in Economic Development. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Guttmann-Bond, E. (2019). Reinventing Sustainability: How Archaeology Can Save the Planet. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Hamilakis, Y., Duke, Ph. (eds.) (2007). Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics (One World Archaeology). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Hodos, T. (ed.) (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization. London: Routledge.
Hutchings, R., La Salle, M. (2019). Sustainable Archaeology: Soothing Rhetoric for an Anxious Institution. Antiquity, No. 93 (372), pp. 1653–1660.
Jennings, J. (2011). Globalizations and the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koch, J. K., Kirleis, W. (eds.) (2019). Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies (Scales of Transformation). Leiden: Sidestone Press.
Kristiansen, K. (2014). Towards a new paradigm? The Third Science Revolution and its Possible Consequences in Archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology, No. 22, pp. 11–71.
Kūlis, M. (2019). Kultūru migrācija – ievads pamatjēdzienu filosofiskajā glosārijā. In: A. Rožkalne (ed.). Latvija: kultūru migrācija. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds, pp. 10–28.
Legzdiņa, D., Vasks, A., Plankājs, E., Zariņa, G. (2020). Re-evaluating the Bronze and Earliest Iron Age in Latvia: changes in burial traditions in the light of 14C dates. Radiocarbon, No. 62 (6), pp. 1845–1868.
Linduff, K., Sun, Y. (eds.) (2004). Gender and Chinese Archaeology. Lanham: AltaMira Press.
Lucas, G. (2015). The mobility of theory. Current Swedish Archaeology, No. 23, pp. 13–32.
McCorriston, J., Field, J. (2019). World Prehistory and the Anthropocene. An introduction to human history. New York: Thames & Hudson College.
McGuire, R. H. (2008). Archaeology as Political Action. Berkeley, Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.
Meharry, J. E., Haboucha, R., Comer, M. (eds.) (2017). On the Edge of the Anthropocene? Modern Climate Change and the Practice of Archaeology. Archaeological Review from Cambridge (ARC), No. 32.2.
Mizoguchi, K. (2020). A word of welcome from the President of the World Archaeological Congress. Available: https://www.wac-9.org/ (viewed 19.02.2020).
Moody-Stuart, M. (2002). Globalization in the 21st Century: An Economic Basis for Development. Corporate Environmental Strategy, No. 9 (2), pp. 115–121.
Morgan, C. (2019). Anarchist Feminist Posthuman Archaeology – CAA 2019. Available: https://colleen-morgan.com/2019/04/27/anarchist-feminist-posthumanarchaeology-caa-2019/ (viewed 03.02.2020).
Naum, M., Ekengren, F. (eds.) (2018). Facing Otherness in Early Modern Sweden. Travel, Migration and Material Transformations, 1500–1800. Suffolk: Boydell & Brewer.
Nelson, S. M., Rosen-Ayalon, M. (eds.) (2001). In Pursuit of Gender: Worldwide Archaeological Approaches. Lanham: AltaMira Press.
Ralph, S. (ed.) (2013). The Archaeology of Violence: Interdisciplinary Approaches. New York: SUNY Press.
Resilience in East African Landscapes (2019). New Frontiers in Anthropocene Archaeology. Available: http://www.real-project.eu/new-frontiers-in-anthropocene-archaeology/ (viewed 10.02.2020).
Rožkalne, A. (ed.) (2019). Latvija: kultūru migrācija. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds.
Sanchez-Mazas, A., Blench, A., Ross, M. D., Peiros, I., Lin, M. (eds.) (2008). Past Human Migrations in East Asia. Matching Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics. London:Routledge.
Schlanger, N., Aitchison, K. (eds.) (2010). Archaeology and the Global Economic Crisis: multiple impacts, possible solution. Brussels: Culture Lab Editions.
Steinberga, D., Stivrins, N. (2021). Fire frequency during the Holocene in central Latvia, northeastern Europe. Estonian Journal of Earth Sciences, No. 70 (3), pp. 127–139.
Stottman, M. J. (ed.) (2010). Archaeologists as Activists: Can Archaeologists Change the World. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Šnē, A., Vijups, A., Mintaurs, M. (2014). Discovering the Archaeologists of Latvia 2012–14. Arheologa profesija Latvijā (2012–2014). Rīga: Latvijas Universitātes Vēstures un filozofijas fakultāte. Available: http://e-archaeology.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LV-DISCO-2014-Latvia-national-report-latvian.pdf (viewed 15.07.2021).
Tomašić, R. (2018). Parliamentary questions. Subject: Celebration of Karl Marx’s Legacy. Available: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2018-002416_EN.html (viewed 10.02.2020.).
Truong, D. (2015). Post-Postmodernism: Where Does it End? Available: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/postpostmodernism-where-d_b_7451724 (viewed 01.02.2020).
Urtāns, J., Virse, I. (eds.) (2010). Arheologu pētījumi Latvijā 2008–2009. Rīga: Nordik.
van de Noort, R. (2013). Climate Change Archaeology. Building Resilience from Research in the World’s Coastal Wetlands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van der Wilt, E. M., Martínez Jiménez, J., Petruccioli, G. (2013). Tough Times: The Archaeology of Crisis and Recovery. Proceedings of the Graduate Archaeology at Oxford conferences in 2010 and 2011. Oxford: BAR Publishing.
Vandkilde, H. (ed.) (2007). Globalisation, Battlefields, Economics: Three Inaugural Lectures in Archaeology. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Vasks, A. (2019). Migrācijas Latvijas aizvēsturē. In: A. Rožkalne (ed.). Latvija: kultūru migrācija. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds, pp. 392–400.
Volka, A. (2016). Medijs kā spogulis un “pēcpatiesība”. Available: https://lv.ejo-online.eu/4200/etika-un-kvalitate/medijs-ka-spogulis-un-pecpatiesiba (viewed 02.02.2020).
Woodfill, B. K. S. (2019). An Archaeologist Writes against the Anthropocene. Open Rivers: Rethinking Water, Place & Community, No. 14. Available: https://editions.lib.umn.edu/openrivers/article/against-the-anthropocene/ (viewed 01.02.2020).
Zariņa, G. (2019). Ieskats pirmās demogrāfiskās pārejas procesos Latvijā. In: A. Rožkalne (ed.). Latvija: kultūru migrācija. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds, pp. 379–391.
Zemītis, G. (2019). Latviskās identitātes veidošanās kultūru migrācijas ietekmē un tās atspoguļojums Latvijas kultūrainavā. In: A. Rožkalne (ed.). Latvija: kultūru migrācija. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds, pp. 352–378.
Zunde, M. (2016). Dendroklimatoloģijas izmantošanas iespējas pagātnes ziemu aukstuma raksturošanai Baltijā. Journal of the Institute of Latvian History/Latvijas Vēstures Institūta Žurnāls, No. 101, pp. 5–37.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Culture Crossroads
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
