Pasts otherwise: Some comments on the historiography of concepts of 'colonialism' and 'entanglement' and the critique of the concept of 'contact' in Australasian archaeology
Pasts otherwise: Some comments on the historiography of concepts of 'colonialism' and 'entanglement' and the critique of the concept of 'contact' in Australasian archaeology
复制标题
过去的另一种情况：对“殖民主义”和“纠缠”概念史学的一些评论以及对澳大利亚考古学中“接触”概念的批判
DOI：
10.1080/03122417.2021.2003975
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
1.1
通讯作者：
Harrison R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Harrison R
我非常同情作者对“接触考古学”一词的批评，以及他们的论点，即它减损了土著和非土著殖民生活世界的真实的不平等以及文化和空间动态。正是这种担忧导致我和其他几个人在20世纪90年代末和21世纪初，与土著合作者合作，并与后殖民和土著历史的新出现的观点进行对话，主张在澳大利亚写作和实践考古学的一系列替代框架。这一系列的工作解决了在殖民背景下土著澳大利亚人的重要话语擦除，一方面通过强调史前史的叙述（例如Byrne 2011），另一方面似乎主要集中在定居者澳大利亚人的代理上。分享风景的书（Harrison 2004）试图提供更具包容性的方式，利用考古学、档案、遗产和口述历史来讲述澳大利亚土著和非土著历史的故事，以及这些历史发生的地方，注意到这些重大的纠缠和不平等，并利用这些新的视角（见哈里森2014年的反思性讨论）。我的工作，以及当时澳大利亚其他作者在这个话题上的工作（例如，参见Harrison 2014中的引文），其中大部分没有被目前正在讨论的评论的作者引用，是在与美国和其他地方的学者的对话中发展起来的（包括Silliman 2005，2016和Jordan 2009，2014，本文作者主要基于他们对“接触”一词的批评）。Silliman和Jordan还引用并借鉴了澳大拉西亚历史土著考古学的经验工作中出现的新概念。虽然这种与“接触”概念的批判有关的思想交流发生得更早-托伦斯和克拉克（2000年）自己主张使用这个术语
I am extremely sympathetic to the authors’ critique of the term ‘contact archaeology’and their argument that it detracts from the real inequalities and cultural and spatial dynamics of Indigenous and non-Indigenous colonial lifeworlds. It was precisely this concern that led me and several others during the late 1990s and 2000s, working with Indigenous collaborators and in dialogue with newly emergent perspectives on postcolonial and Indigenous histories, to argue for a range of alternative frameworks for writing about and practising archaeology in Australia. This body of work addressed the significant discursive erasure of Indigenous Australians in colonial contexts through narratives that placed emphasis on deep prehistory on the one hand (eg Byrne 2011), and that seemed focussed primarily on the agency of settler Australians on the other. The book Shared Landscapes (Harrison 2004) was an attempt to provide more inclusive ways of using archaeology, archives, heritage and oral histories to tell stories of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian history and the places in which those histories had occurred, mindful of these significant entanglements and inequalities, and drawing on these new perspectives (see reflective discussion in Harrison 2014).My work, and the work of other authors on this topic in Australia at the time (eg see citations in Harrison 2014), much of which is not cited by the authors of the comment currently being discussed, was developed in dialogue with scholars in the United States and elsewhere (including Silliman 2005, 2016 and Jordan 2009, 2014 on whose work the authors of this paper mainly base their critique of the term ‘contact’). Silliman and Jordan also cited and drew on new concepts emerging from empirical work on historical Indigenous archaeology in Australasia. Although this exchange of ideas relating to the critique of the concept of ‘contact’was happening much earlier–Torrence and Clarke (2000) themselves argued for the use of the term