Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:46:27.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Earth flows and lively stone. What differences does ‘vibrant’ matter make?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2018

Craig N. Cipolla
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay differentiates between various branches of post-human scholarship as they relate to issues of colonial inequality, social action and politics. Through their critique of human exceptionalism, through their recognition of the vibrancy of matter, and in their potential connections with politically engaged scholarship, certain lines of post-humanist thought stand to make important contributions to archaeologies of long-term and colonial Indigenous history. I argue that these qualities offer nuanced perspectives on the plural colonial past and present of New England (north-eastern North America). I explore the prospects for a selectively post-human and pragmatic archaeology in connection with recent debates over stone landscapes. This approach makes room for various stakeholder narratives, finding possible common ground in a shared human condition between stakeholders, i.e. subject to ‘earth flows and lively stone’.

Keywords

post-humanismNew Materialismpragmatismflat ontologypostcolonialismarchaeologies of colonialismNative North America
Type
Articles
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , June 2018 , pp. 49 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Alberti, B., 2014: Designing body-pots in the early formative La Candelaria Culture, northwest Argentina, in Hallam, E., and Ingold, T. (eds), Making and growing. Anthropological studies of organisms and artefacts, Aldershot, 107–25.Google Scholar
Alberti, B., 2016: Archaeologies of ontology, Annual review of anthropology 45, 163–79.Google Scholar
Alberti, B., Fowles, S., Holbraad, M., Marshall, Y., and Witmore, C.L., 2011: ‘Worlds otherwise’. Archaeology, anthropology and ontological difference, Current anthropology 52, 896–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atalay, S., 2006a: Indigenous archaeology as decolonizing practice, American Indian quarterly 30, 280–310.Google Scholar
Atalay, S., 2006b: No sense in the struggle. Creating a context for survivance at the NMAI, American Indian quarterly 30, 597–618.Google Scholar
Atalay, S., 2012: Community-based archaeology. Research with, by, and for Indigenous and local communities, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Barad, K., 2003: Posthumanist performativity. Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter, Signs 28, 801–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barad, K., 2007: Meeting the universe halfway. Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
Barrett, J., 2014: The material constitution of humanness, Archaeological dialogues 21, 65–74.Google Scholar
Bauer, A.M., and Kosiba, S., 2016: How things act. An archaeology of materials in political life, Journal of social archaeology 16, 115–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaser, M., 2014: Ontology and Indigeneity. On the political ontology of heterogeneous assemblages, Cultural geographies 21, 49–58.Google Scholar
Bennett, J., 2010: Vibrant matter. A political ecology of things, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
Butler, E.L., 1946: The brush and stone memorial heaps of southern New England, Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 19, 3– 12.Google Scholar
Butler, J. 1993: Bodies that matter. On the discursive limits of sex, New York.Google Scholar
Cameron, E., de Leeuw, S., and Desbiens, C., 2014: Indigeneity and ontology, Cultural geographies 21, 19–26.Google Scholar
Carter, K.J., 1997: Salem stone piles could be slaves’ graves, The Day, 11 June.Google Scholar
Cipolla, C.N., 2013a: Becoming Brothertown. Native American ethnogenesis and endurance in the modern world, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
Cipolla, C.N., 2013b: Native American historical archaeology and the trope of authenticity, Historical archaeology 47, 12–22.Google Scholar
Cipolla, C.N., 2016: Being and becoming stone. Material semiotics in colonial New England, Semiotic review 4, at www.semioticreview.com/ojs/index.php/sr/article/view/10.Google Scholar
Cipolla, C.N. (ed.), 2017a: Foreign objects. Rethinking Indigenous consumption in American archaeology, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
Cipolla, C.N., 2017b: Postcolonial archaeology in the age of things, in Cipolla, C.N. (ed.), Foreign objects. Rethinking Indigenous consumption in American archaeology, Tucson, AZ, 222–29.Google Scholar
Cipolla, C.N., and Hayes, K.H. (eds), 2015: Rethinking colonialism. Comparative archaeological approaches, Gainesville, FL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cipolla, C.N., and Quinn, J., 2016: Field school archaeology the Mohegan way. Reflections on twenty years of community-based research and teaching, Journal of community archaeology and heritage 3, 118–34.Google Scholar
Crosby, C.A., 1988: From myth to history, or why King Philip's ghost walks abroad, in Leone, M.P. and Potter, P.B. Jr (eds), The recovery of meaning. Historical archaeology in the eastern United States, Washington, DC, 183–210.Google Scholar
DeLanda, M., 1995: The geology of morals. A neo-materialist interpretation, paper presented at the Virtual Futures 95 Conference, Warwick University, UK, 26 May 1995, available at www.t0.or.at/delanda/geology.htm, accessed 9 December 2016.Google Scholar
DeLanda, M., 2006: A new philosophy of society. Assemblage theory and social complexity, London.Google Scholar
DeLanda, M., 2016: Assemblage theory, Edinburgh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F., 1987: A thousand plateaus. Capitalism and schizophrenia (tr. Massumi, B.), Minneapolis.Google Scholar
DeloriaV., Jr V., Jr, 2003 (1973): God is red. A Native view of religion, Golden.Google Scholar
Dolphijn, R., and van der Tuin, I., 2012: ‘Matter feels, converses, suffers, desires, yearns, and remembers’. Interview with Karen Barad, in Dolphijn, R. and van der Tuin, I. (eds), New materialism: Interviews and cartographies, Ann Arbor, MI, 48–70.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, M., 2016: Grounded objects. Archaeology and speculative realism, Archaeological dialogues 23, 93–113.Google Scholar
Esposito, J.L., 2007: Synechism. The keystone of Peirce's metaphysics, in Queiro, J. and Gudwin, R. (eds), Digital encyclopedia of Charles S. Peirce, at www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/home.htm.Google Scholar
Ferris, N., Harrison, R. and Wilcox, M.V. (eds), 2014: Rethinking colonial pasts through archaeology, Oxford.Google Scholar
Fowler, C., and Harris, O.J.T., 2015: Enduring relations. Exploring a paradox of new materialism, Journal of material culture 20, 127–48.Google Scholar
Fowles, S., 2013: An archaeology of doings. Secularism and the study of Pueblo religion, Santa Fe.Google Scholar
Fowles, S., 2016: The perfect subject (postcolonial object studies), Journal of material culture 21, 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frost, R., 1969: Mending wall, in The poetry of Robert Frost. The collected poems, complete and unabridged (ed. Lathem, E.C.), New York, 33–34.Google Scholar
Gosden, C., 2004: Archaeology and colonialism. Culture contact from 5000 BC to the present, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gosden, C., 2005: What do objects want?, Journal of archaeological method and theory 12, 193–211.Google Scholar
Gosden, C., 2014: Commentary. The archaeology of the colonized and global archaeological theory, in Ferris, N., Harrison, R. and Wilcox, M.V. (eds), Rethinking colonial pasts through archaeology, Oxford, 476–82.Google Scholar
Harris, O.J.T., 2014a: (Re)assembling communities, Journal of archaeological method and theory 21, 76–97.Google Scholar
Harris, O.J.T., 2014b: Revealing our vibrant past. Science, materiality and the Neolithic, in Whittle, A. and Bickle, P. (eds), Early farmers. The view from archaeology and science, Oxford, 327–45.Google Scholar
Harris, O.J.T., and Cipolla, C.N., 2017: Archaeological theory in the new millennium, New York.Google Scholar
Harris, O.J.T., and Robb, J., 2013: Multiple ontologies and the problem of the body in history, American anthropologist 114, 668–79.Google Scholar
Hayes, K.H., 2011: Occulting the past. Conceptualizing forgetting in the history and archaeology of Sylvester Manor, Archaeological dialogues 18, 197– 221.Google Scholar
Hempstead, J., 1901: Diary of Joshua Hempstead of New London, Connecticut. Covering a period of forty-seven years from September, 1711 to November, 1758, Whitefish, MT.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 2012: Entangled. An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things, Malden, MA.Google Scholar
Holbraad, M., 2007: The power of powder. Multiplicity and motion in the divinatory cosmology of Cuban Ifá (or Mana, again), in Henare, A., Holbraad, M. and Wastel, S. (eds), Thinking through things. Theorizing artefacts ethnographically, New York, 189–225.Google Scholar
Hunt, S., 2014: Ontologies of Indigeneity. The politics of embodying a concept, Cultural geographies 21, 27–32.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 2000: The perception of the environment. Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill, New York.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 2007: Materials against materiality, Archaeological dialogues 14, 1–16.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 2014: Is there life amidst the ruins?, Journal of contemporary archaeology 1, 231–35.Google Scholar
Ives, T., 2013: Remembering stone piles in New England, Northeast anthropology 79–80, 37–80.Google Scholar
Ives, T., 2015a: Cairnfields in New England's forgotten pastures, Archaeology of eastern North America 43, 119–32.Google Scholar
Ives, T., 2015b: Romance, redemption, and ceremonial stone landscapes, Archaeological Society of Connecticut bulletin 77, 151–66.Google Scholar
Jones, A.M., and Alberti, B., 2013: Archaeology after interpretation, in Alberti, B., Jones, A.M. and Pollard, J. (eds), Archaeology after interpretation. Returning materials to archaeological theory, Walnut Creek, CA, 15–42.Google Scholar
Kendall, E.A., 1809: Travels through the northern parts of the United States, in the Years 1807 and 1808, Vol. 2, New York.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1993: We have never been modern, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Liebmann, M., and Rizvi, U.Z. (eds), 2008: Archaeology and the postcolonial critique, Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
Lydon, J., and Rizvi, U.Z. (eds), 2010: Handbook of postcolonial archaeology, Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
McLoughlin, L.A., 2017: Semiotic stone mysteries, Journal of community archaeology and heritage, 1–4.Google Scholar
Miller, D. (ed.), 2005: Materiality, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
Mrozowski, S.A., Herbster, H., Brown, D. and Priddy, K.L., 2009: Magunkaquog materiality, federal recognition, and the search for a deeper history, International journal of historical archaeology 13, 430–63.Google Scholar
Oland, M., Hart, S. and Frank, L. (eds), 2012: Decolonizing Indigenous histories. Exploring prehistoric/colonial transitions in archaeology, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., 2003: Material culture after text. Re-membering things, Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., 2010: In defense of things. Archaeology and the ontology of objects, Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., 2012: After interpretation. Remembering archaeology, Current Swedish archaeology 20, 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., and Witmore, C., 2015: Archaeology, symmetry and the ontology of things. A response to the critics, Archaeological dialogues 22, 187–97.Google Scholar
Peirce, C.S., 1892: The law of mind, The Monist 2, 533–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C.S., 1998 (1893): Immortality in the light of synechism, in The essential Peirce. Selected philosophical writings, Vol. 2 (1893–1913), Bloomington (The Peirce Edition Project), 1–3.Google Scholar
Pétursdóttir, P., 2012: Small things forgotten now included, or what else do things deserve?, International journal of historical archaeology 16, 577–603.Google Scholar
Pihlström, S., 2012: Peircean modal (and moral?) realism(s). Remarks on the normative methodology of pragmatist metaphysics, in de Waal, C. and Skowroński, K.P. (eds), The normative thought of Charles Sanders Peirce, New York, 231–58.Google Scholar
Pollock, S., 2016: The subject of suffering, American anthropologist 118, 726–41.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, A., 2016: Archaeology will be just fine, Archaeological dialogues 23, 146–51.Google Scholar
Rorty, R., 1982: Consequences of pragmatism (Essays: 1972–1980), Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Salinas, F.J., 2014: Bruno Latour's pragmatic realism. An ontological inquiry, Global discourse. An interdisciplinary journal of current affairs and applied contemporary thought 6, 8–21.Google Scholar
Schmidt, P.R., and Mrozowski, S.A. (eds), 2013: The death of prehistory, Oxford.Google Scholar
Simmons, W.S., 1986: Spirit of the New England tribes, Hanover, NH.Google Scholar
Smith, L.T., 1999: Decolonizing methodologies. Research and Indigenous people, London.Google Scholar
Sørensen, T.F., 2013: We have never been Latourian. Archaeological ethics and the posthuman condition, Norwegian archaeological review 46, 1–18.Google Scholar
Sørensen, T.F., 2016: Hammers and nails. A response to Lindstrøm and to Olsen and Witmore, Archaeological dialogues 23, 115–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speck, F.G., 1945: The memorial brush heap in Delaware and elsewhere, Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Delaware 4, 17–23.Google Scholar
Stiles, E., 1916: Extracts from the itineraries and other miscellanies of Ezra Stiles, D.D., LL. D., 1755–1794, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Stiles, E. n.d.: Ezra Stiles papers. Itineraries, Vol. 4, Yale University Archives, unpublished document accessed 18 March 2017.Google Scholar
Sundberg, J., 2014: Decolonizing posthumanist geographies, Cultural geographies 21, 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, Z., 2016: An Indigenous feminist's take on the ontological turn. ‘Ontology’ is just another word for colonialism, Journal of historical sociology 29, 4–22.Google Scholar
USET (United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc.), 2003: Resolution No. USET 2003:022 sacred landscapes within Commonwealth of Massachusetts, unpublished document, passed October 2002, Uncasville, CT.Google Scholar
USET (United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc.), 2007: Resolution No. USET 2007:037 sacred ceremonial stone landscapes found in the ancestral territories of United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc. member tribes, unpublished document, passed February 2007, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
USET (United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc.), 2014: Resolution No. USET 2014:056 requesting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to initiate tribal consultation, unpublished document, passed June 2014, Bar Harbor, ME.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, R.M., 2015a: Materiality in practice. An introduction, in van Dyke, R.M. (ed.), Practicing materiality, Tucson, AZ, 1–32.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, R.M. (ed.), 2015b: Practicing materiality, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
Vizenor, G., ed., 2008: Survivance. Narratives of native presence, Lincoln, NB.Google Scholar
Watts, C., 2010: On mediation and material agency in the Peircean semeiotic, in Knappet, C. and Malafouris, L. (eds), Material agency, New York, 187–207.Google Scholar
Watts, C. (ed.), 2013: Relational archaeologies. Humans, animals, things, New York.Google Scholar
Webmoor, T., and Witmore, C.L., 2008: Things are us! A commentary on human/thing relations under the banner of a ‘social’ archaeology, Norwegian archaeological review 41, 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weslager, C.A., 1947: Indian stone piles in Maryland, Maryland historical magazine 42, 46–49.Google Scholar
Witmore, C.L., 2007: Symmetrical archaeology. Excerpts of a manifesto, World archaeology 39, 546–62.Google Scholar
Witmore, C., 2014: Archaeology and the new materialisms, Journal of contemporary archaeology 1, 203–24.Google Scholar