Can Archaeology be a Form of Colonialism? Exploring the Implications of the Actor-Network Theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52152/heranca.v7i2.993Keywords:
Actor-Network Theory; Archeology; Colonialism; Technology; Network KnowledgeAbstract
This research paper examines the long-lasting impact of colonialism in archaeology through the lens of actor-network theory (ANT). It investigates how historical and contemporary power dynamics, particularly those based on Eurocentrism, continue to influence archaeological practices and knowledge production. Besides human actors, the study also emphasizes the importance of nonhuman actors, such as tools, technologies, and data, in reinforcing these asymmetrical power dynamics. Using qualitative research methods, the paper investigates how colonial powers historically dominated the field and how these practices continue to this day. A detailed literature review demonstrates that the dominance of Western narratives in archaeology frequently marginalizes local perspectives and knowledge. The paper advocates for a more collaborative and egalitarian approach to archaeological research, emphasizing the value of community involvement and knowledge co-curation. It implies that using ANT can help uncover and mitigate colonial influences by emphasizing the complex networks of human and non-human interactions that underpin archaeological practices. The study's findings advocate for a reevaluation of research methodologies in archaeology to ensure more equitable and inclusive knowledge production, fostering a better understanding of past and present cultural dynamics. Future implications include the possibility of more equitable power distributions in the field, as well as the promotion of ethical research practices that value and incorporate local voices and expertise.
Downloads
References
Adebisi, Y. A. (2023). Decolonizing epidemiological research: A critical perspective. Avicenna Journal of Medicine, 13(02), 068-076.
Andrew, B., & Neath, J. (2018). Encounters with legacy images: Decolonising and re-imagining photographic evidence from the colonial archive. History of Photography, 42(3), 217-238.
Bruchac, M. M. (2020). Decolonization in archaeological theory. In C. Smith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of global archaeology (pp. 3199-3207). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Carvalho, D., & Agosto, M. (2023). Tools of archaeology: Toward an integrated history of archaeology. Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, 33(1), 1-20.
Cisneros, J. C., Raja, N. B., Ghilardi, A. M., Dunne, E. M., Pinheiro, F. L., Regalado Fernández, O. R., . . . Pardo, J. D. (2022). Digging deeper into colonial palaeontological practices in modern day Mexico and Brazil. Royal Society Open Science, 9(3), 210898.
Cruz, M. D. (2023). One size does not fit all : Theory and practice of decolonizing archaeology in Africa. Forum Kritische Archäologie, 12, 6–11.
Dauchy, S., Martyn, G., Musson, A., Pihlajamäki, H., & Wijffels, A. (Eds.). (2017). Law books during the transition from late-medieval to early-modern legal scholarship. In The formation and transmission of western legal culture: 150 books that made the law in the age of printing (pp. 1–10). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Davis, T. (2011). Supply and demand: Exposing the illicit trade in Cambodian antiquities through a study of Sotheby’s auction house. Crime, Law and Social Change, 56(2), 155-174.
de Oliveira Garcia, M., Gava, R., Tonelli, D. F., & Brito, V. D. G. P. (2018). Actor-network theory: Opening the black box of the reasons for the involvement of researchers in the technology transfer process. Journal of Innovation Management, 6(4), 49-72.
Durepos, G., & Mills, A. J. (2012). Actor-network theory, ANTi-history and critical organizational historiography. Organization, 19(6), 703-721.
Haber, A. (2016). Decolonizing archaeological thought in South America. Annual Review of Anthropology, 45(1), 469-485.
Heng, P., Phon, K., & Heng, S. (2020). De-exoticizing Cambodia’s archaeology through community engagement. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage, 7(3), 198-214.
Herszberg, D. (2022). Decolonizing stewardship: An ethical justification for the repatriation of archaeological artefacts. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 37(1), 124–147.
Krupa, K. L., & Grimm, K. T. (2021). Digital repatriation as a decolonizing practice in the archaeological archive. Across the Disciplines, 18(1/2), 47-58.
Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale welt, 47(4), 369-381.
Latour, B. (1999). On recalling ANT. The Sociological Review, 47(1), 15-25.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. (2017). On actor-network theory: Some clarifications supplemented by further complications. Philosophical and Literary Journal Logos, 27(1), 173-200.
Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393.
Masenya, T. M. (2022). Decolonization of indigenous knowledge systems in South Africa. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(1), 1–22.
Marcellin, S., & Ascoli, P. (2010). The archiving of electronic documents under French law. Digital Evidence & Electronic Signature Law Review, 7, 108.
Mol, A. (2010). Actor-network theory: Sensitive terms and enduring tensions. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 50(1), 253-269.
Müller, M. (2015). Assemblages and actor‐networks: Rethinking socio‐material power, politics and space. Geography Compass, 9(1), 27-41.
Murdoch, J. (2017). Inhuman/nonhuman/human: Actor-network theory and the prospects for a nondualistic and symmetrical perspective on nature and society. In C. T. Smith (Ed.), Theory and methods (pp. 513-538). London, UK: Routledge.
Odeny, B., & Bosurgi, R. (2022). Time to end parachute science. PLoS Medicine, 19(9) doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004099
Penny, D., Hall, T., Evans, D., & Polkinghorne, M. (2019). Geoarchaeological evidence from Angkor, Cambodia, reveals a gradual decline rather than a catastrophic 15th-century collapse. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(11), 4871-4876.
Pilaar Birch, S. E., & Szpak, P. (2022). Current developments and future directions in archaeological science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(43), e2212490119.
Piphal, H., Sonetra, S., & Sotheavin, N. (2023). ‘Invisible Cambodians’: Knowledge production in the history of Angkorian archaeology. In M. L. Stark & J. R. Ledgerwood (Eds.), The Angkorian World (pp. 42-63). London, UK: Routledge.
Raja, N. B., Dunne, E. M., Matiwane, A., Khan, T. M., Nätscher, P. S., Ghilardi, A. M., & Chattopadhyay, D. (2022). Colonial history and global economics distort our understanding of deep-time biodiversity. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 6(2), 145-154.
Rydin, Y. (2017). Actor-network theory. In M. Gunder, A. Madanipour, & V. Watson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of planning theory (pp. 302-313). London, UK: Routledge.
Simonds, V. W., & Christopher, S. (2013). Adapting Western research methods to indigenous ways of knowing. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12), 2185-2192.
Stoler, A. L. (2002). Colonial archives and the arts of governance. Archival Science, 2, 87-109.
Van Oyen, A. (2015). Actor-Network theory's take on archaeological types: Becoming, material agency and historical explanation. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 25(1), 63-78.
Wickramasinghe, N., Tatnall, A., & Bali, R. K. (2010). Using actor-network theory to facilitate a superior understanding of knowledge creation and knowledge transfer. International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation (IJANTTI), 2(4), 30-42.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Herança
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
8.png)
