Modern Colonialism, Eurocentrism and Historical Archaeology: Some Engendered Thoughts
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
European Journal of Archaeology 21 (3) 2018, 455–471
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Modern Colonialism, Eurocentrism and
Historical Archaeology: Some
Engendered Thoughts
SANDRA MONTÓN-SUBÍAS1 AND ALMUDENA HERNANDO2
1
Departament d’Humanitats, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain; ICREA,
Barcelona, Spain
2
Departamento de Prehistoria, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain
In this article, we would like to share some thoughts related to the values and principles implemented by
archaeologists when bringing ‘the other’ into focus. We situate our reflections within the archaeology of
modern colonialism, and revisit some aspects related to one of the most vibrant issues in historical
archaeology: Eurocentrism. It is our understanding that ‘de-Eurocentring’ the discipline not only
requires introducing the disenfranchised as new agents, but also questioning the most profound logics by
which narratives of the past have been written. We focus on the idea of history as change, and on the
notion of social continuity from a feminist standpoint. We have noticed that certain accounts of colonial
situations, even those with the opposite intention, may project the prevailing Western male way of
being while trying to explain past social and personal dynamics, thus blurring ontological diversity and
unwittingly reinforcing the Eurocentrism we are trying to avoid.
Keywords: historical archaeology, modern colonialism, Eurocentrism, feminist archaeology, change
and continuity, maintenance activities
INTRODUCTION Wolf, 1982; Quijano & Wallerstein,
1992; Dussel, 1995, 2000; Lander, 2000;
‘Quand on aborde un problème aussi Castro Gómez & Grosfoguel, 2007;
important que l’inventaire des Mignolo, 2008; and, for related ideas,
possibilités de compréhension de deux Marks, 2002; Parker, 2010; Gruzinski,
peuples différents, on doit redoubler 2012). Profound changes of all types fol-
d’attention.’ (Fanon, 1952: 67)1 lowed. These were not only changes ‘in a
In their critique of Eurocentrism, Latin known world that merely altered some of
American decolonial thinkers situate the its traits’ but ‘changes in the world as such’
origins of the first true World Order in (Quijano, 2000: 547).
the modern conquest and colonization of This new colonial world encompassed
the Americas (e.g. Wallerstein, 1974; the emergence of Eurocentrism as a new
rationale, and eventually constructed a
1 ‘When one approaches a problem as important as Eurocentric self-legitimating historical dis-
that of an inventory of the possibilities for understand-
ing between two different peoples, one should be course. Following decolonial authors (e.g.
doubly careful’ (translation in Fanon, 1986: 84). Lander, 2000: 14; Quijano, 2000), we
© European Association of Archaeologists 2017 doi:10.1017/eaa.2017.83
Manuscript received 14 April 2017,
accepted 7 November 2017, revised 25 September 2017
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 18 Feb 2022 at 10:31:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.83456 European Journal of Archaeology 21 (3) 2018
understand that this new rationale orga- Eurocentrism, and strong efforts have
nized all peoples of the world, past and been made ever since to identify, scrutin-
present, into a single universal narrative, ize, and demolish Eurocentrism in our
with Europe representing both the geo- discipline (for a discussion, see Orser,
graphical centre and the summit of all 2012). Here, we would like to deepen this
temporal movement. This narrative was critique. It is our contention that more
fully developed in the nineteenth century attention needs to be paid to the logics
(Amin, 1988; Blaut, 1993, 2000; underlying the writing of history.
Wallerstein, 2006; Álvarez-Uría, 2015), Otherwise, we may end up strengthening
when history and archaeology, as institu- the most profound rationale behind trad-
tionalized academic disciplines, replaced itional Eurocentric narratives, hence
myth as the discourse to explain the past curbing our ability to appreciate cultural
(Hernando, 2012b). New understandings difference and idiosyncrasy in the past.
of space, time, and human agency, and, We focus on the idea of history as
basically, the glorification of history as change and on the notion of social con-
change took the stage (Quijano, 2000: tinuity from a feminist standpoint. Most
547). Archaeology and history thus shared specifically, we stress: 1) that a positive
fundamental conceptual foundations: the appraisal of change is always associated
assumption that change was the axis with individuality; 2) that individuality
through which to think the world, the runs parallel to the emergence and
perception of time as a linear trajectory, increase of social hierarchization and
and the idea of space as a bi-dimensional technological development; 3) that indi-
parameter that could be expanded end- viduality is a type of personhood that, in
lessly. This particular, and situated, way of Europe, has characterized most men since
understanding the world, which has domi- the Early Modern period; 4) that persons
nated the social order since the nineteenth in non-hierarchical societies appreciate
century, was considered to be universal stability and continuity more than
and inherent to any human reading of the change; 5) that while human history has
world. But it was not universal, as we will been a combination of continuity and the
discuss in this article. search for change, history as a discourse
In the 1960s, modern colonial processes has mainly emphasized change; 6) that,
were used to demarcate historical archae- therefore, the logics behind the historical
ology, a subfield of the discipline that ori- and archaeological discourse is an expres-
ginally emerged in the United States and sion of the modern hegemonic individua-
was soon defined as the ‘archaeology of lized masculinity (sensu Connell &
the spread of European cultures through- Messerschmidt, 2005); and 7) that the
out the world since the fifteenth century, perception of change typical of Western
and their impact on and interaction with male individuality has been wrongly
the cultures of indigenous peoples’ (Deetz, projected onto the interpretation of the
1996 [1977]: 5).2 Historical archaeologists past. Consequently, we understand that
soon expressed concerns against Eurocentrism was/is not so much the
imposition of the European understanding
2 We are well aware that historical archaeology is a of the world, but of a specific European
controversial term and that there has been an energetic
debate about its narrow versus wide chronological adop- understanding of the world: the male or
tion. Here, we use the term to refer to the study of all
processes connected to the European expansion, con-
quest, and colonization that began in the Late Middle shape (Leone & Potter, 1988; Orser, 1996; Little,
Ages, and that have moulded the world to its present 2007).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 18 Feb 2022 at 10:31:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.83Montón-Subías and Hernando – Modern Colonialism, Eurocentrism and Historical Archaeology 457
patriarchal one operating in Europe at the explanations of the past. Eurocentrism
time of the continent’s worldwide expansion. (and androcentrism) has found here one of
its most impregnable hideouts, to the
point that it often goes unnoticed. An
SOME THOUGHTS ON EUROCENTRISM anecdote from a few years ago will illus-
AND HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY trate this point (see Montón-Subías &
Abejez, 2015: 25). In the session
Since Wolf’s (1982) Europe and the People ‘Entangled Colonialism: Changes in
Without History, and partly as a reaction to Material Culture and Space in the Late
burning critiques of Eurocentrism, many Medieval through to the Modern Period’
historical archaeologists have considered it that took place at the 2012 European
an important goal to give voice to the voice- Association of Archaeologists Annual
less and, thus, rescue from oblivion all Meeting, Richard Ciolek-Torello
those unrecalled in traditional historical explained that some Native American sub-
narratives (e.g. Funari, 1991; Orser, 1996; sistence strategies in southern California
Hall, 1999; Kelly, 2003; Leone, 2011; had been profoundly modified after the
Escribano-Ruiz, 2016). At about the same implantation of the Spanish Catholic mis-
time as this goal permeated historical sions. In this way, he emphasized, some
archaeology, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak social dynamics that had remained rela-
(1988), a feminist and postcolonial scholar tively stable had been truncated. In the
scrutinizing pervasive Eurocentrism in Q&A session that followed, one of the
postcolonial discourse, was already ques- attendees considered this vision of Native
tioning whether it was possible for the Americans as Eurocentric. According to
subaltern to speak, making reference to her, in thinking that it had been the mis-
the most Western embedded structures of sionaries who had first brought change to
thought in the production of knowledge. the area, he was reinforcing an image of
Coloniality, a term used later by decolonial native populations as backward, by
authors drawing on Frantz Fanon’s legacy denying the indigenous people the same
(e.g. Quijano, 1992; Lander, 2000; contri- capacity and desire for change as the
butions in Julia Suárez-Krabbe et al., Spaniards.
2009), also refers to colonialism within Although different authors have been
today’s production of knowledge, and to critical about the fact that change has been
the imposition of knowledge systems gen- valued in an overly positive way in archae-
erated by Europeans through such disci- ology (e.g. Panich, 2013; González-
plines as anthropology, history, and Ruibal, 2014; Lightfoot, 2015), it is also
archaeology (see also Chakrabarty, 1992). true that many archaeologists still consider
Fanon himself (1952: 120) mentions as a that ‘giving voice to the voiceless’ requires
glaring example how schoolchildren in attributing them the same attitude towards
Martinique were taught about the Gauls change and the same degree of individual-
being their ancestors, which promoted an ity that characterize individuals in the
immediate identification with European present (e.g. Sampson, 1988; Ewing,
subjectivities and worldviews. 1990; Cohen, 1994; Knapp & Meskell,
Debunking Eurocentrism necessarily 1997; Sökefeld, 1999; Moore, 2000; Knapp
encompasses debunking the coloniality of & Van Dommelen, 2008; Machin, 2009;
knowledge, which implies interrogating but see Thomas, 2004, for a critique).
dominant values behind the construction In the wake of concerns about
of historical and archaeological Eurocentrism, claims about the stability of
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 18 Feb 2022 at 10:31:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.83458 European Journal of Archaeology 21 (3) 2018
non-European societies have come to be being) for native populations can be mis-
considered Eurocentric (and politically judged as offensive, and as Eurocentric. In
incorrect), and it is easy to understand fact, the truly Eurocentric stance is not
why. Lack of change or a slower pace being able to recognize the possibility that
of change—interpreted as a lack of other societies might prefer stability to
progress—was one of the main features change, and their ability to constitute ways
Eurocentric thought once emphasized to of being a person that—although equally
describe non-European societies and valid—are radically different from those
depict them as inferior (e.g. Kant, 1784). existing in Europe or the West.
Therefore, one might expect reactions to In order to promote alternative and more
Eurocentrism to have included deconstruct- inclusive narratives, we must question the
ing the belief that equated changelessness way historical and archaeological accounts
with backwardness. Nevertheless, this has have been created and how they have con-
not been the case, and reactions to veyed biased Eurocentric understandings of
Eurocentrism have very often shared with the past. It is, thus, not only important to
it the idea that the European pattern of focus on bringing attention to those who
change is universal. have been ignored, but also to highlight the
Besides sharing with others (e.g. mechanisms and motives underlying the
Thomas, 2004; Olivier, 2013; González- construction of such Eurocentric under-
Ruibal, 2014) a critical attitude to this standings. We consider an alliance with
idea, we want to take a step further. To feminist thought to be fundamental to this
us, projecting the pattern of change task. Although not all androcentrism is
applauded by hegemonic Western history Eurocentric, Eurocentrism is always andro-
onto any human group is not only centric. It is an expression of the rationale
Eurocentric but also androcentric. and gender identity of those in command
Embedded in this pattern are the values of the world, mostly men, both in the past
characterizing the construction of the and in the present (Millet, 1972).
hegemonic male self in European culture From a feminist standpoint, Eurocentrism
at the time of its modern colonial world- would be a self-interested and partisan
wide expansion. This male self was con- construct about the European historical
structed through an increasing emphasis trajectory. Change, individuality, reason,
on individuality and reason (Weintraub, and, with them, power, self-control, vio-
1978; Lloyd, 1984; Morris, 1987; Seidler, lence (exercised as a means to obtain,
1993), a linear perception of time and a wield, or regain power), technical progress,
positive appraisal of change (Seidler, 1989; or economic growth have been considered
Hernando, 2012a). It is precisely on the the universal goals of all human beings
basis of such universalization—the identi- ever since the Enlightenment (see Seidler,
fication of the typical European male 1989, 1993; Connell, 1995; Connell &
identity since Early Modernity as the only Messerschmidt, 2005), which explains
possible type of identity for all human why these same values have been used by
beings (Hernando, 2012a)—that the idea mainstream archaeological and historical
that past peoples might have had other discourses to describe other societies
types of identities causes a shock among (Hernando, 2012b). But, in Europe, such
some archaeologists, as the anecdote told values only became generalized as a way to
above exemplifies. And it is precisely construct men’s identities in the seven-
because of current ingrained Eurocentrism teenth century. ‘If we think that growth
that claiming stability (and other ways of and change are more advanced than
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 18 Feb 2022 at 10:31:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.83Montón-Subías and Hernando – Modern Colonialism, Eurocentrism and Historical Archaeology 459
stability or continuity’, Francesca Bray categories dealing with contact—from the
argued in 1997, ‘it is because that is how much-reviled acculturation to more recent
our modern Western world was made […] constructs such as hybridity, creolization,
But other worlds were made in other ways’ or ethnogenesis—have focused mainly on
(Bray, 1997: 12). We would go further the dynamics of change, although he has
and say that even our own world was also drawn attention to the ‘growing inter-
made in other ways by integrating compo- est in the investigation of cultural persist-
nents such as human bonds, community, ence’ (2015: 9221). Works by several
continuity, emotions, or the search for authors (including Lightfoot’s in 1995,
protection among others. However, only and Lightfoot et al., 1998) have consid-
the first group of these components was ered both types of dynamics, trying to
recognized by social discourse and main- increase awareness of the fact that societies
stream science (see Seidler, 1993; are not only made of changes but also of
Hernando, 2012b; Fowler, 2016). continuities (e.g. Silliman, 2005, 2009;
Rodríguez-Alegría, 2008, 2014; Ferris
2009; Mitchell & Scheiber, 2010;
ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE IDEA OF Hernández, 2012; Stahl, 2012; González-
CHANGE Ruibal, 2013, 2014; Panich, 2013; Wright
& Ricardi 2014; Flexner et al., 2015).
Archaeology and history are intrinsically However, it is feminist archaeology,
linked to the idea of change as they are with its critique to androcentrism, that has
discourses about our origins that were fully been reflecting the longest on the pro-
constructed in the nineteenth century to found reasons why master narratives have
replace myth, which was characterized in ignored continuity, explaining why it
turn by the absence of time and change. needs to be unveiled and theorized, and
Since the Western world (as well as showing its social value. We have dis-
others) is the result of changes over time, cussed elsewhere (Hernando, 2008, 2012a)
researching change in these disciplines is why the idea of history as change cannot
not in itself problematic. The problem be separated from the emergence of the
arises when these accounts of the past modern male subjectivity in Europe, and
underscore the importance of social thus why emphasis on social change, to
dynamics whose function was to promote the detriment of social continuity, has
continuity, stability, security, bonds, and been at the core of archaeology and history
belonging, as these dynamics play a funda- as academic disciplines. Let us make a
mental role in the groups’ ability to gener- short digression to clarify this point.
ate changes without creating feelings of This digression relates to the (pre) his-
ontological anxiety or life disorientation toric roots of Western gender inequality
(Giddens, 1991: 35–47). In this respect, and the interplay between individuality
mainstream archaeology and history have and relationality in the construction of
constituted ‘partial’ discourses about the personhood throughout European history.
dynamics that explain our past, and have Although very recent non-feminist studies
reflected only one side of human beha- are beginning to acknowledge the import-
viours: those acknowledged by the men who ance of relational identity in analyses of
constructed that very historical discourse. the past (e.g. Sedikides & Brewer, 2015;
Regarding the historical archaeology of Fowler, 2016), from a feminist standpoint
culture contact and colonialism, Kent the stress has been placed on understand-
Lightfoot (2015: 9218) has noticed how ing the different ways in which the
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 18 Feb 2022 at 10:31:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.83460 European Journal of Archaeology 21 (3) 2018
interaction between relational and indivi- Positive appraisals of change are inex-
dualized identity has differentially affected tricably linked to individuality as a mode
male and female selves throughout history of self-identity, and to the increase of
(Hernando, 2012a, 2012b). Unlike other technological control over the world and
studies, these works emphasize the inter- the subsequent feeling of power before it.
play between conscious and unconscious Individuality only appears when differen-
identities throughout the development of tiated positions of power exist within
the masculine self/masculine individuality groups and when persons begin to feel dif-
in European history, and propose different ferent from each other, progressively
trajectories in the development of men’s taking on the position of agents of their
and women’s identities in the Western own destinies. At this point, their onto-
world. One critical point is that relational logical security no longer stems from the
identity is indispensable to generate onto- protection of a sacred instance and bonds
logical security and is, thus, always present with the group, but from their own ability
in all types of self, although it is not to increase (and thus change) their control
always acknowledged. over the environment. In this way, the
Unlike other approaches, we have greater the level of specialized functions
argued that, in our most remote past, both and hierarchical positions, the higher the
men and women must have been charac- level of individuality of those in such posi-
terized by relationality and not by indi- tions will be, and the more their security
viduality as there were neither different will rely on their own ability to change.
positions of power nor work specialization There is consensus among scholars who
(Hernando, 2012a). When features of have studied individuality that one of its
individuality began to appear as a counter- defining features is reflexivity, a strong
part of increasing power and technological awareness of oneself as a differentiated
control sustained by some men, relational entity and a sense of coherence as guiding
ones did not disappear in them, but began self-transformation in the course of one’s
to be ‘performed’ unconsciously, in an life (Weintraub, 1978: 95; Veyne, 1987: 7;
unacknowledged way instead (essentially Giddens, 1991: 20, 52). Individuality,
through normative heterosexuality and change, technological development, and a
social groups of male peers). Women, rational understanding of the world all
whose individualization men prevented characterize the process of growing div-
until Late Modernity in order to guarantee ision of functions and differentiation of
their own ‘relational’ bonds, became the power positions wherever such a process
necessary complement for them. In this takes place, at any time in history. But it
way, men were only conscious of their was in Europe that it reached its peak in
individualized identity, while performing Early Modernity, and where it was experi-
their relational one through subordinated enced mainly by men until late modern
women (who, in not being individualized, times. The more individualized men
did not develop a desire or ability for became, the more importance they gave to
change or power). Men and women then change, individual agency, or technological
followed different identity pathways: development, and the more ‘dependent’
increasing individuality (mixed with they became on women to act relationality.
unacknowledged relationality) in men, and In other words, the more importance men
only relationality in women until Late gave to change, individual agency, and
Modernity (Hernando, 2012a, 2012b; see technological development, the more patri-
also Lloyd, 1984; Seidler, 1993). archal their relation with women became.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 18 Feb 2022 at 10:31:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.83Montón-Subías and Hernando – Modern Colonialism, Eurocentrism and Historical Archaeology 461
For all these reasons, the dominant ontological security, the more cyclical their
historical discourse has been mostly an concept of time is, and the greater the
expression of male perspectives on reality. attachment they feel to their space, as sta-
Therefore, the idea of history as change, bility will constitute the desired goal
so enmeshed in our perception of history, (Munn, 1992; Elias, 1993; Gell, 1996).
is in itself androcentric and historical, and By the same logic, it can also be argued
far from universal. that, within a given group, those people
who carry out more specialized tasks
(which are more closely associated with
THE SOCIAL VALUE OF CONTINUITY change) will have more linear visions of
time and will attribute less importance to
In their critique of androcentrism, feminist their links with space and with other
scholars, including archaeologists, have members of the group than those who do
drawn attention to the fact that discourses not carry out these specialized tasks. In
about the past have mainly commended general terms, women tend to be among
values, attitudes, and capacities associated the latter in most historical trajectories.
to dominant Western male identity; a type So, the values and attitudes of colonizers,
of logic that conceals and rejects values travellers, and explorers in the periods
associated to the construction of traditional studied by historical archaeology reflected
female gender identity such as relationality, those of the most individualized men of
interdependence and social bonding, their time, but not those of many other
emotion, care, stability, durability, continu- men or women in their own society, nor
ity, and recurrence (e.g. Seidler, 1989, those of the people they were colonizing,
1993; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; visiting, or exploring.
González Marcén et al., 2008; Montón- Feminist studies have, therefore, focused
Subías, 2010; Montón-Subías & Lozano, on spheres of practice which mainstream
2012; Hernando, 2012a, 2012b). It has archaeology had neglected, as they were not
been shown that, while space and time are the expression of changes over time or
structural in the making of selves, they can rapid technological advance. Among these
be experienced in substantially different are ‘maintenance activities’, mainly carried
ways by different human groups (Giddens, out by women in most societies. Initially
1991: 37), and this difference also holds catalysed by feminist challenges to unveil
true for genders and people in different sexist bias in the archaeological discipline
positions of power within the same group (Bertelsen et al., 1987), and closely linked
(González Marcén & Picazo, 1997; to developments in feminist gender and
Damm, 2000; Hernando, 2002).3 feminist household archaeology (Conkey &
The less technological control charac- Gero, 1991; Tringham, 1991; Hendon,
terizes human groups, the more they 1996), the concept of maintenance activities
pursue stability and reject change, the has been used to underscore the structural
more importance is given to interdepend- and foregrounding nature of a set of prac-
ence and emotional bonds to feel tices which are fundamentally necessary to
guarantee the stability and continuity of
3 Although, from different perspectives, other scholars life in any human group (Picazo, 1997;
have also discussed time as a cultural notion that might
have been differently perceived in the past (e.g. Leone, González Marcén et al., 2008). They
1978; Fabian, 1983; Bailey, 1987; Shanks & Tilley, include, grosso modo, all activities related to
1987; Gosden & Lock, 1998; Lucas, 2005; Goody,
2006; Olivier, 2008, 2013; Verdesio, 2013; González- feeding and food processing, basic clothing
Ruibal, 2014). and weaving, care giving, raising and
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 18 Feb 2022 at 10:31:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.83462 European Journal of Archaeology 21 (3) 2018
socializing children, and fitting out and both archaeology and history have contrib-
organizing related spaces. These activities uted many examples in different periods
are fundamental in regulating and stabiliz- and spaces (e.g. Cowan, 1989; Brumfiel,
ing social life, and in guaranteeing the 1991; Hastorf, 1991; Brumfiel & Robin,
group’s cohesion through the strengthening 2008; Meyers, 2008; Sánchez Romero &
of its basic bonds (e.g. Dommasnes, 2008; Aranda, 2008; Tarble de Scaramelli &
Gifford-Gonzalez, 2008; Gilchrist, 2008; Scaramelli, 2012). However, under normal
González Marcén et al., 2008; Sánchez circumstances, the pace at which they
Romero, 2008). change is incomparably slower than that of
Maintenance activities appear in varying other tasks, since their ultimate function is
forms and are organized in different ways to guarantee the reiteration and recurrence of
from one culture to another, but invariably the group’s activities, and/or to channel any
play a structural role in all of them. They changes in the latter into new reiteration
are carried out on a day to day basis and recurrence patterns or, in other words,
(although they do not take up daily life into new ways of everyday life manage-
completely) and are inseparable from the ment (for a wider discussion, see González
relational social tissue they generate and Marcén et al., 2008).
within which they unfold. Grouping them We consider the study of maintenance
all under the same denomination has activities crucial to understand such colo-
highlighted the collective function shared nial situations as those studied by histor-
by them all, which would otherwise ical archaeology. Such is the perspective
remain clouded. we are applying in the framework of a
Grouping these activities has also served research project related to the incorpor-
the purpose of tracing the development of ation of Guam and the Mariana Islands
a common set of social values they all into the colonial network of the Spanish
embody (Hernando, 2008; Montón- Empire in the seventeenth century
Subías, 2010; Montón-Subías & Lozano, (Montón-Subías et al., forthcoming).
2012). By underlining the value of links While a more detailed account of this case
and social bonding, of emotional skills, lies beyond the scope of this article, some
and of maintaining relationships and care of the project’s more general and prelimin-
as fundamental pillars of social life, ary conclusions exemplify the topic well.
researchers have raised awareness of the In Guam, as in many other places where
importance of relationality, interdepend- colonization was part of a ‘civilizing’
ence, stability, continuity, and recurrence project (sensu Fanon, 1952), the implemen-
in the course of history. Already in the tation of the very colonial enterprise on the
1990s, a work on Bronze Age Iberia called ground brought relevant transformations in
for a focus ‘on the role of stability as an the sphere of maintenance activities. This,
alternative historical perspective, rather we would like to insist, was due to their key
than emphasizing the dynamics of change’ role in channelling changes in new ways of
(Colomer et al., 1998: 53). The article not managing everyday life.
only brought continuity to the fore, but In the case of Guam, it seems clear
also criticized the tendency to regard past that, almost since the first moment of per-
social stability as stagnant and backward, manent colonization in 1668, maintenance
instead of considering it a resilient, sus- activities were the target of colonial pol-
tainable, and successful strategy. icies. From the concentration of the popu-
Needless to say, maintenance activities lation and the re-structuration of living
have also changed throughout history, and spaces in reducciones to children’s
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 18 Feb 2022 at 10:31:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.83Montón-Subías and Hernando – Modern Colonialism, Eurocentrism and Historical Archaeology 463
socialization in Jesuit seminaries, through masculinity are addressed, and a more com-
food systems, dress, kinship, healing prac- prehensive world history can be constructed.
tices, and sexuality, Jesuit missionaries
aimed to dismantle traditional Chamorro
lifeways, which were mainly organized SOME FINAL THOUGHTS
through maintenance activities (Moral,
2016; Montón-Subías et al., forthcoming). Eurocentrism is such an embedded part of
Thus, while for Jesuit missionaries the col- the Western rationale that only through
onization of the Marianas Islands was a constant interrogation and inquiry will we
mainly political-and-religious enterprise, be able to denude its multiple layers (sensu
for natives on the islands it was the deep Lander, 2000: 7). Here, we have argued
structure of the world and the bonds that that one of these layers remains in assump-
connect humans to it that were at stake. tions ingrained in the background that
Although the Guam example is but one configure the most intimate discursive
of the many examples making up the structure we use to interpret the past.
heterogeneous colonial matrix of Early These deep assumptions identify historical
Modernity, we believe that it clearly illus- dynamics with the logic characterizing
trates the paramount importance of main- modern male identity, eliding the much
tenance activities within it. In situations of more complex dynamics structuring society.
de-structuration and forcible change, such As archaeologists, and particularly as
as those characterizing many colonial pro- archaeologists dealing with the effects of
cesses, it is particularly important to study early European expansion and coloniza-
those dynamics which seek continuity and tion, we have a special responsibility. We
stability. It is, therefore, necessary to are interpreting colonial situations that
understand how maintenance activities encompass contact and domination over
make possible the continuity of both local people with very different inner cultural
populations and those arriving throughout logics and, thus, with different, even con-
the colony’s history, as well as the viability trasting, understandings of the self and
(or not) of the very colonial projects. worldviews, and with historical dynamics
It would be of great interest to engage in guided by values and forces which differed
a comparative reading of maintenance from those of the West. We, therefore,
activities in colonial situations. Fortunately, have the responsibility of trying to under-
several archaeological works have documen- stand these ‘other’ in their ‘otherness’, and
ted one or more of these activities in such not as part of ‘the same’ (ourselves)
situations. The list, which could begin with (Dussel, 1995: 12). For this reason, para-
Deagan’s works at St Augustine (1983), is phrasing Fanon quoted at the beginning
too long to reproduce here (but see Voss, of this article, we must be doubly careful.
2008, for a discussion of many of the Otherwise, we may interpret ‘other
resulting publications in the Americas, and people’s’ historical dynamics from the
Fogle et al., 2015, for a recent publication). same parameters and values constructed by
However, a comparative study has not yet Western history. Far from being universal,
been carried out, and this would be very as our discussion shows, those parameters
helpful to better illustrate the way in which and values are historically and geopolitic-
dynamics of stability, recurrence, and ally contextualized, and aimed at legitimiz-
continuity were involved in this first world ing—let us reiterate—only a biased
globalization. By making them manifest, European discourse. In our own
dynamics different from those of hegemonic Eurocentric projection of values, we do
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 18 Feb 2022 at 10:31:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.83464 European Journal of Archaeology 21 (3) 2018
not only reaffirm Europe and the present the ‘other’ a-historical because their ways of
(Olivier, 2013), but the patriarchal order being in the world followed patterns that
intrinsic to its social discourse. We must were different from those extolled by
stress that we are by no means arguing history as a discipline. However, reading
that all groups outside Western modernity the ‘absence’ (or a slower pace) of change as
regard change in a negative way. On the a disadvantage, or ignoring dynamics of
contrary, we hope to have made it clear permanence and continuity, is also a
that the extent to which change is posi- product of Eurocentrism and of its andro-
tively appraised depends on the group’s centric bias. Incorporating the Other into
degree of social hierarchization and narratives of the past does not mean ascrib-
technological control over their life cir- ing to them Western historicities or the
cumstances. Consequently, it is very parameters that have been used in their
important to recognize that the positive construction, as has often stemmed from
values we place on the idea of change rest Eurocentric fear (e.g. critiques by Ewing,
on a certain historical genealogy, and not 1990; Cohen, 1994, or Moore, 2000). It
on any ‘moral’ grounding (in other words, means recognizing and acknowledging
that it is neither better nor worse to have other forms of historicity and incorporating
change). their background values and principles into
Furthermore, the positive appraisal of the writing of history. In our view, this is
change and the ensuing perception of time one of the main potentials of historical
espoused by archaeologists in the present archaeology (and of archaeology in general).
are different, for both the colonized In addition, and importantly, feminist
groups we study and for the many people works such as those presented here attempt
in Europe at the time. In this respect, two to raise awareness of the fact that the type
more points should be made: 1) The fact of historicity privileged by mainstream dis-
that European societies generally presented course is far from universal, even within the
higher levels of technological control and very geographical context of the West.
higher differences in social power caused Here too, ‘internal others’ challenge the
the process itself to impose ‘accelerated’ supremacy of history as change. Therefore,
paces of change and perceptions of time de-colonizing history not only implies
onto those of the subjugated peoples (see bringing new agents and geographies to
Suzman, 2004, for a related example in world history, but also new ways of under-
contemporary Africa); and 2) that standing ourselves, making visible the fea-
European colonizers brought with them tures associated with relationality that male
higher levels of gender inequality than had individuality has concealed and, therefore,
previously characterized subaltern popula- making possible its recognition in ‘the
tions (e.g. Allen, 1992; Hughes & other’. Granted, this is a great responsibil-
Hughes, 1997; Oyewumi, 1997; Lugones, ity, but it is also a great opportunity to
2008; Paredes, 2008; Segato, 2015). regain ontological heterogeneity and to
We also hope to have made it clear that understand the true and most profound
claiming the importance of stability and implications of colonial contacts.
continuity in the history of humankind
should not be confused with proposing
stagnation or backwardness, precisely the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
image of native societies that Eurocentrism
promoted (see, for instance, Adas, 1989). This article was written with the support
The Eurocentric imagination considered of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 18 Feb 2022 at 10:31:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.83Montón-Subías and Hernando – Modern Colonialism, Eurocentrism and Historical Archaeology 465
Competitiveness under Grant HAR2016- Brumfiel, E. & Robin, C. 2008. Gender,
77564-C2-1-P and Grant HAR2016– Households, and Society: An
77564-C2-2-P. Heartfelt thanks go to Introduction. In: C. Robin & E. Brumfiel,
eds. Gender, Households, and Society:
Enrique Moral de Eusebio for his helpful Unraveling the Threads of the Past and the
comments and suggestions. For the same Present (Archaeological Papers of the
reasons, we would also like to thank American Anthropological Association
Catherine Frieman and the two anonym- 18). Malden (MA): Blackwell, pp. 1–16.
ous referees that peer-reviewed our first Castro Gómez, S. & Grosfoguel, S. 2007.
Prólogo. Giro decolonial, teoría crítica y pen-
manuscript. Thanks as well to Pedro samiento heterárquico. In: S. Castro Gómez
Pablo Fermin Maguire and Madeleine & S. Grosfoguel, eds. El giro decolonial.
Hummler for making our English much Reflexiones para una diversidad epistémica más
better. allá del capitalismo global. Bogotá: Siglo del
Hombre Editores, pp. 9–23.
Chakrabarty, D. 1992. Postcoloniality and the
Artifice of History: Who Speaks for
REFERENCES ‘Indian’ Pasts? Representations, 37: 1–26.
Cohen, A.P. 1994. Self-Consciousness: An
Adas, M. 1989. Machines as the Measure of Alternative Anthropology of Identity. London:
Men: Science, Technology, and Ideologies of Routledge.
Western Dominance. Ithaca and London: Colomer, L., González Marcén, P. &
Cornell University Press. Montón-Subías, S. 1998. Maintenance
Allen, P.G. 1992. The Sacred Hoop: Recovering Activities, Technological Knowledge and
the Feminine in American Indian Traditions. Consumption Patterns: A View of Northeast
Boston (MA): Beacon Press. Iberia (2000–500 Cal BC). Journal of
Álvarez-Uría, F. 2015. El reconocimiento de la Mediterranean Archaeology, 11: 53–80.
humanidad. España, Portugal y América Conkey, M. & Gero, J. 1991. Tensions,
Latina en la génesis de la modernidad. Pluralities, and Engendering Archaeology:
Madrid: Morata. An Introduction to Women and Prehistory.
Amin, S. 1988. L’Eurocentrisme. Critique d’une In: J. Gero & M. Conkey, eds. Engendering
idéologie. Paris: Anthropos. Archaeology. Women and Prehistory. Oxford:
Bailey, G. 1987. Breaking the Time Barrier. Basil Blackwell, pp. 3–30.
Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 6: Connell, R.W. 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley
5–20. (CA): University of California Press.
Bertelsen, R., Lillehammer, A. & Næss, J. R. Connell, R.W. & Messerschmidt, J.W. 2005.
eds. 1987. Were They All Men? An Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the
Examination of Sex Roles in Prehistoric Concept. Gender and Society, 19: 829–59.
Society. Stavenger: Arkeologist museum i Cowan, R.S. 1989. More Work for the Mother:
Stavenger. The Ironies of Household Technology from
Blaut, J.M. 1993. The Colonizer’s Model of the the Open Hearth to the Microwave. London:
World: Geographical Diffusionism and Free Association Books.
Eurocentric History. New York & London: Damm, C. 2000. Time, Gender, and
The Guilford Press. Production: A Critical Evaluation of
Blaut, J.M. 2000. Eight Eurocentric Historians. Archaeological Time Concepts. In: M.
New York & London: The Guilford Donald & L. Hurcombe, eds. Gender and
Press. Material Culture in Archaeological Perspective.
Bray, F. 1997. Technology and Gender: Fabrics New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 110–22.
of Power in Late Imperial China. Berkeley Deagan, K. 1983. Spanish St Augustine: The
(CA): University of California Press. Archaeology of a Colonial Creole Community.
Brumfiel, E. 1991. Weaving and Cooking: New York: Academic Press.
Women’s Production in Aztec Mexico. In: Deetz, J. 1996 (1977). In Small Things
J. Gero & M. Conkey, eds. Engendering Forgotten: The Archaeology of Early
Archaeology. Women and Prehistory. Oxford: American Life (revised ed). New York:
Basil Blackwell, pp. 224–51. Anchor Books.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 18 Feb 2022 at 10:31:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.83466 European Journal of Archaeology 21 (3) 2018
Dommasness, L.H. 2008. ‘On a whirling Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Self-identity:
wheel their hearts were made’: Women Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.
between Ideology and Life in the Nordic Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press.
Past. In: S. Montón-Subías & M. Gifford-Gonzalez, D. 2008. Thoughts on a
Sánchez Romero, eds. Engendering Social Method for Zooarchaeological Study of
Dynamics: The Archaeology of Maintenance Quotidian Life. In: S. Montón-Subías &
Activities (BAR International Series 1862). M. Sánchez Romero, eds. Engendering
Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 87–95. Social Dynamics: The Archaeology of
Dussel, E. 2000. Europa, Modernidad y Maintenance Activities (BAR International
Eurocentrismo. La colonialidad del saber: Series 1862). Oxford: Archaeopress, pp.
eurocentrismo y ciencias sociales. In: E. 15–23.
Lander, ed. Perspectivas lationoamericanas. Gilchrist, R. 2008. Nurturing the Dead:
Buenos Aires: CLASCO, pp. 41–53. Medieval Women as Family Undertakers.
Dussel, R. 1995. The Invention of the Americas: In: S. Montón-Subías & M. Sánchez
Eclipse of ‘the Other’ and the Myth of Romero, eds. Engendering Social Dynamics:
Modernity. New York: Continuum. The Archaeology of Maintenance Activities
Elias, N. 1993. Time: An Essay. London: Basil (BAR International Series 1862). Oxford:
Blackwell. Archaeopress, pp. 41–47.
Escribano-Ruiz, S. 2016. Desde una González Marcén, P. & Picazo, M. 1997. El
arqueología inclusiva, por un pasado mejor. tiempo en arqueología. Madrid: Arco Libros.
Un ensayo epistemológico y axiológico. González Marcén, P., Montón-Subías, S. &
Complutum, 27: 21–30. Picazo, M. 2008. Towards an Archaeology
Ewing, K.P. 1990. The Illusion of Wholeness: of Maintenance Activities. In: S. Montón-
Culture, Self, and the Experience of Subías & M. Sánchez Romero, eds.
Inconsistency. Ethos, 18: 251–78. Engendering Social Dynamics: The
Fabian, J. 1983. Time and the Other: How Archaeology of Maintenance Activities (BAR
Anthropology Makes its Object. New York: International Series 1862). Oxford:
Columbia University Press. Archaeopress, pp. 3–8.
Fanon, F. 1952. Peau noire masques blancs. González-Ruibal, A. ed. 2013. Reclaiming
Paris: Seuil. Archaeology: Beyond the Tropes of
Fanon, F. 1986. Black Skin, White Masks. Modernity. London: Routledge.
London: Pluto Press. González-Ruibal, A. 2014. An Archaeology of
Ferris, N. 2009. The Archaeology of Native- Resistance: Materiality and Time in an African
Lived Colonialism: Challenging History in Borderland. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.
the Great Lakes. Tucson (AZ): University Goody, J. 2006. The Theft of History.
of Arizona Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flexner, J.L., Willie, E., Lorey, A.Z., Gosden, C. & Lock, G. 1998. Prehistoric
Alderson, H., Williams, R. & Ieru, S. 2015. Histories. World Archaeology, 30: 2–12.
Iarisi’s Domain: Historical Archaeology of a Gruzinski, S. 2012. L’aigle et le dragon.
Melanesian Village, Tanna Island, Vanuatu. Démesure européenne et mondialisation au
Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 11: XVIe siècle. Paris: Fayard.
26–49. Hall, M. 1999. Subaltern Voices? Finding the
Fogle, K.R., Nyman, J.A. & Beaudry, M.C. eds. Spaces between Things and Words. In: P.
2015. Beyond the Walls: New Perspectives on Funari, M. Hall & S. Jones, eds. Historical
the Archaeology of Historical Households. Archaeology: Back from the Edge. London:
Gainesville (FL): University Press of Florida. Routledge, pp. 193–203.
Fowler, C. 2016. Relational Personhood Hastorf, C. 1991. Gender, Space, and Food in
Revisited. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, Prehistory. In: J. Gero & M. Conkey, eds.
26: 397–412. Engendering Archaeology: Women and
Funari, P.P. 1991. A arqueologia e a cultura Prehistory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp.
africanas nas Américas. Estudios 132–59.
Iberoamericanos, 17: 61–71. Hendon, J. 1996. Archaeological Approaches to
Gell, A. 1996. Art and Agency: An the Organisation of’ Domestic Labor:
Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Oxford Household Practice and Domestic Relations.
University Press. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25: 45–61.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 18 Feb 2022 at 10:31:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.83Montón-Subías and Hernando – Modern Colonialism, Eurocentrism and Historical Archaeology 467
Hernández, G. 2012. Ceramics and the Spanish Leone, M.P. & Potter, P.B. 1988. Introduction:
Conquest: Response and Continuity of Issues in Historical Archaeology. In: M.P.
Indigenous Pottery Technology in Central Leone & P.B. Potter, eds. The Recovery
Mexico. Leiden & Boston: Brill. of Meaning. Washington: Smithsonian
Hernando, A. 2002. Arqueología de la Institution Press, pp. 1–22.
Identidad. Madrid: Akal. Lightfoot, K.G. 1995. Culture Contact Studies:
Hernando, A. 2008. Why has History not Redefining the Relationship between
Appreciated Maintenance Activities? In: Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology.
S. Montón-Subías & M. Sánchez American Antiquity, 60: 199–217.
Romero, eds. Engendering Social Dynamics: Lightfoot, K.G. 2015. Dynamics of Change in
The Archaeology of Maintenance Activities Multiethnic Societies: An Archaeological
(BAR International Series 1862). Oxford: Perspective from Colonial North America.
Archaeopress, pp. 9–14. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Hernando, A. 2012a. La fantasía de la indivi- Sciences of the United States of America,
dualidad. Buenos Aires: Katz (English 112: 9216–23.
translation (2017) The Fantasy of Lightfoot, K.G., Martínez, A. & Schiff, A.M.
Individuality: On the Sociohistorical 1998. Daily Practice and Material Culture
Construction of the Modern Subject. in Pluralistic Social Settings: An
New York: Springer). Archaeological Study of Culture Change
Hernando, A. 2012b. Change, Individuality, and Persistence from Fort Ross, California.
and Reason: Or How Archaeology Has American Antiquity, 63: 199–222.
Legitimized a Patriarchal Modernity. In: Little, B. 2007. Topical Convergence: Historical
A. González-Ruibal, ed. Reclaiming Archaeologists and Historians on Common
Archaeology: Beyond the Tropes of Modernity. Ground. Historical Archaeology, 41: 10–20.
London: Routledge, pp. 155–67. Lloyd, G. 1984. The Man of Reason: ‘Male’ and
Hughes, S.S. & Hughes, B. 1997. Women in ‘Female’ in Western Philosophy. Minneapolis
World History: Readings from 1500 to the (MN): University of Minnesota Press.
Present. Armonk (NY): M.E. Sharpe. Lucas, G. 2005. The Archaeology of Time.
Kant, I. 2013 (1784). An Answer to the London & New York: Routledge.
Question: What Is Enlightenment? London: Lugones, M. 2008. Colonialidad y género.
Penguin Books. Tabula rasa, 9: 73–101.
Kelly, K.G. 2003. The African Diaspora Starts Machin, A. 2009. The Role of the Individual
Here: Historical Archaeology of Coastal Agent in Acheulean Biface Variability.
West Africa. In: A.M. Reid & P.J. Lane, Journal of Social Archaeology, 9: 35–58.
eds. African Historical Archaeologies. Marks, R.B. 2002. The Origins of the Modern
New York: Springer, pp. 219–44. World: A Global and Ecological Narrative from
Knapp, A.B. & Meskell, L. 1997. Bodies of the Fifteenth to the Twenty-first Century.
Evidence on Prehistoric Cyprus. Cambridge Lanham (MD): Rowman & Littlefield.
Archaeological Journal, 7: 183–204. Meyers, C. 2008. Grinding to a Halt: Gender
Knapp, A.B. & Van Dommelen, P. 2008. and the Changing Technology of Flour
Past Practices: Rethinking Individuals and Production in Roman Galilee. In: S.
Agents in Archaeology. Cambridge Montón-Subías & M. Sánchez Romero,
Archaeological Journal, 18: 15–34. eds. Engendering Social Dynamics: The
Lander, E. ed. 2000. La colonialidad del saber: Archaeology of Maintenance Activities (BAR
eurocentrismo y ciencias sociales. Perspectivas International Series 1862). Oxford:
lationoamericanas. Buenos Aires: CLASCO. Archaeopress, pp. 65–74.
Leone, M. 1978. Time in American Mignolo, W. 2008. La opción descolonial.
Archaeology. In: C. Redman, ed. Social Letral, 1: 4–22.
Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating. Millet, K. 1972. Sexual Politics. London:
London: Academic Press, pp. 25–36. Abacus.
Leone, M. 2011. Making Historical Mitchell, M.D. & Scheiber, L.L. 2010.
Archaeology Postcolonial. In: T. Majewski Crossing Divides: Archaeology as Long-
& D. Gaimster, eds. International Handbook Term History. In: L.L. Scheiber & M.D.
of Historical Archaeology. New York: Mitchell, eds. Across a Great Divide:
Springer, pp. 159–68. Continuity and Change in Native North
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 18 Feb 2022 at 10:31:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.83468 European Journal of Archaeology 21 (3) 2018
American Societies, 1400–1900. Tucson Discourses. Minneapolis (MN): University
(AZ): University of Arizona Press, pp. of Minnesota Press.
1–22. Panich, L.M. 2013. Archaeologies of
Montón-Subías, S. 2010. Maintenance Persistence: Reconsidering the Legacies of
Activities and the Ethics of Care. In: L.H. Colonialism in Native North America.
Dommasnes, T. Hjørungdal, S. Montón- American Antiquity, 78: 105–22.
Subías, M. Sánchez Romero & N. Wicker, Paredes, J. 2008. Una sociedad en estado y con
eds. Situating Gender in European estado despatriarcalizador. La Paz:
Archaeologies. Budapest: Archaeolingua, pp. Viceministerio de Asuntos Género y gen-
23–33. eracionales, Ministerio de Justicia.
Montón-Subías, S. & Abejez, L. 2015. ¿Qué Parker, C. 2010. Global Interactions in the
es esa cosa llamada Arqueología Histórica? Early Modern Age, 1400–1800.
Complutum, 26: 11–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Montón-Subías, S. & Lozano, S. 2012. La Picazo, M. 1997. Hearth and Home: The
arqueología feminista en la normatividad Timing of Maintenance Activities. In: J.
académica. Complutum, 23: 163–76. Moore & E. Scott, eds. Invisible People and
Montón-Subías, S., Bayman, J. & Moragas, N. Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood in
forthcoming. Arqueología del Colonialismo European Archaeology. London & New York:
Español en Guam. In: B. Marín-Aguilera, Leicester University Press, pp. 59–67.
ed. Repensar el colonialismo. Iberia, de Quijano, A. 1992. Colonialidad y Modernidad/
colonial a potencia colonial. Madrid: JAS Racionalidad. Perú Indígena, 13: 11–20.
Arqueología. Quijano, A. 2000. Coloniality of Power,
Moore, H. 2000. Ethics and Ontology: Why Eurocentrism, and Latin America.
Agents and Agency Matter. In: M.A. Nepantla: Views from South, 1: 533–80.
Dobres & J.E. Robb, eds. Agency in Quijano, A. & Wallerstein, I. 1992. Americanity
Archaeology. London: Routledge, pp. 259–63. as a Concept, or the Americas in the
Moral de Eusebio, E. 2016. Heterotopías en Modern World-System. International Social
conflicto. Sexualidad, colonialismo y Sciences Journal, 134: 549–57.
cultura material en las Islas Marianas Rodríguez-Alegría, E. 2008. Narratives of
durante el siglo XVII. In: I.P. Coelho, J. Conquest, Colonialism, and Cutting-Edge
Torres, L. Serrão & T. Ramos, eds. Entre Technology. American Anthropologist, 110:
ciência e cultura: Da interdisciplinaridade à 33–43.
transversalidade da arqueología (Actas das Rodríguez-Alegría, E. 2014. A Paradox in
VIII Jornadas de Jovens em Investigação Colonialism and Technological Change.
Arqueológica). Lisboa: CHAM, IEM, pp. Revista de Arqueología Americana, 32: 7–26.
229–32. Sampson, E.E. 1988. The Debate on
Morris, C. 1987. The Discovery of the Individual: Individualism. Indigenous Psychologies of
1050–1200. Toronto: University of Toronto the Individual and their Role in Personal
Press/Medieval Academy of America. and Societal Functioning. American
Munn, N.D. 1992. The Cultural Anthropology Psychologist, 43: 15–22.
of Time: A Critical Essay. Annual Review of Sánchez Romero, M. 2008. An Approach to
Anthropology, 21: 93–123. Learning and Socialization in Children
Olivier, L. 2008. Le sombre abîme du temps: during the Spanish Bronze Age. In: L.H.
mémoire et archéologie. Paris: Seuil. Dommasnes & M. Wrigglesworth, eds.
Olivier, L. 2013. The Business of Archaeology is Children Identity and the Past. Newcastle:
the Present. In: A. González-Ruibal, ed. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 113–24.
Reclaiming Archaeology: Beyond the Tropes of Sánchez Romero, M. & Aranda, G. 2008.
Modernity. London: Routledge, pp. 117–29. Changing Foodways: New Strategies in
Orser, C. 1996. A Historical Archaeology of the Food Preparation, Serving, and
Modern World. New York: Plenum. Consumption in the Bronze Age of the
Orser, C. 2012. An Archaeology of Iberian Peninsula. In: S. Montón-Subías &
Eurocentrism. American Anthropologist, 77: M. Sánchez Romero, eds. Engendering Social
737–55. Dynamics: The Archaeology of Maintenance
Oyewumi, O. 1997. The Invention of Women: Activities (BAR International Series 1862).
Making an African Sense of Western Gender Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 83–94.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 18 Feb 2022 at 10:31:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.83You can also read
