- Anthropology Department
Tufts University
Medford, MA
Craig N Cipolla
Tufts University, Anthropology, Faculty Member
- Material Culture, Northeastern North America (Archaeology), Midwest Archaeology, Archaeological Method & Theory, Memory Studies, Anthropology, and 109 moreCollaborative Archaeology, Materiality (Anthropology), Historical Archaeology, Historical Anthropology, Native American (History), Cultural Heritage, Indigenous Archaeololgy, Charles S. Peirce, Native American Studies, Archaeology, Discourse Analysis, Pragmatism, Environmental Archaeology, Colonial America, Social Archaeology, Archaeological Fieldwork, Early Modern Atlantic World (1500-1815), Archaeology and Ancient History, Semiotics, Social Identity, Zooarchaeology, Postcolonial Theory, Ethnohistory, Memory, Native American, Historical Archaeology of Native Americans, History, Material Culture Studies, Death and Burial (Archaeology), Charles Taylor, Ethics and the Relevance of Archaeology, Post-Colonialism, Archaeology of Colonialism, Glass Beads, Temporality, Historical Processualism, Tim Ingold, Practice theory, Biography of Objects, Archaeology of Religion, Thing Theory, New Materialism, Algonquian languages, Consumption and Material Culture, Anthropology of Religion, History of Anthropology, Community Engagement & Participation, Deep History, Commemoration and Memory, Peircean Semiotics, Material Semiotics, Religious Syncretism, Pragmatic Semiotics, Atlantic World, North American archaeology, Anthropology Of Consumption, Consumption Studies, Object Agency/Material Agency, Agency, Prehistoric Trade and Exchange, Paleoethnobotany (Anthropology), Museum Studies, Museum Anthropology, Ontological Turn, Ethnogenesis (archaeology), Historical Archaeology and Diaspora Studies, Native American Diaspora, Diaspora Studies, Biosemiotics, Great Lakes Archaeology, Comparative Colonialism, Phenomenology, Postcolonial Studies, Theoretical Archaeology, Archaeological Phenomenology, Pragmatics, Cultural Semiotics, Peirce Pragmaticist Semiotics, Museums, Museum and Heritage Studies, Symmetry, Assemblage Theory, Assemblage Theory - Manuel De Landa, Posthumanism, Critical Posthumanism, Decolonial Thought, Fur Trade Archaeology, Object Oriented Ontology, Speculative Realism, Graham Harman, Gilles Deleuze, Ontology, Social Ontology, New Materialisms, Feminist new materialism, Perspectivism, Relational Ontology, Vine Deloria, Jr., Settler Colonial Studies, Realism, Pragmatic realism, Old Copper Culture, Old Copper Complex, Copper Artefacts, Rock Art (Archaeology), Archaeology of the Contemporary Past, Skeuomorphism, Chaîne Opératoire, and Lithic Technologyedit
- Craig Cipolla is an archaeologist and anthropologist at Tufts University. Before joining Tufts, he was Curator and Ve... moreCraig Cipolla is an archaeologist and anthropologist at Tufts University. Before joining Tufts, he was Curator and Vettoretto Chair of North American Archaeology at the Royal Ontario Museum and Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Toronto. He has published widely on North American archaeology, collaborative archaeology, and archaeological theory, including over 40 publications in journals such as American Antiquity and American Anthropologist. His books include Becoming Brothertown (2013, University of Arizona Press) and Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium (with Oliver Harris, 2017, Routledge). Through grants and donor cultivation, he has helped raise over 2.5 million dollars (CAD) in research funding and museum donations, including grants from the National Science Foundation and the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. He is currently the director of the Mohegan Archaeological Field School, a collaborative field school designed and run in partnership with the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut.edit
Archaeology for Today and Tomorrow explores how cutting-edge archaeological theories have implications not only for how we study the past but also for how we think about and prepare for the future. Ranging from how we understand migration... more
Archaeology for Today and Tomorrow explores how cutting-edge archaeological theories have implications not only for how we study the past but also for how we think about and prepare for the future. Ranging from how we understand migration or political leadership to how we think about violence or ecological crisis, the book argues that archaeology should embrace a "future-oriented" attitude. Behind the traditional archaeological gaze on the past is a unique and useful collection of skills, tools, and orientations for rethinking the present and future. Further, it asserts that archaeological theory is not only vital for how we conduct our work as archaeologists and how we create narratives about the past but also for how we think about the broader world in the present and, crucially, how we envision and shape the future. Each of the chapters in the book links theoretical approaches and global archaeological case studies to a specific contemporary issue. It examines such issues as human movement, violence, human and non-human relations, the Anthropocene, and fake news to showcase the critical contributions that archaeology, and archaeological theory, can make to shaping the world of tomorrow. An ideal book for courses on archaeology in the modern world and public archaeology, it will also appeal to archaeology students and researchers in general and all those in related disciplines interested in areas of critical contemporary concern.
Research Interests: Future Studies, Social Theory, Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Anthropology, and 15 morePragmatism, Humanities, Historical Archaeology, Social Sciences, Posthumanism, Archaeological Method & Theory, Social Archaeology, Archaeological Theory, Archaeology of the Contemporary Past, Anthropocentrism, New Materialism, Assemblage Theory, Politics of Archaeology, Archaeological Theory and Praxis, and Relational Archaeology
Archaeological Theory in Dialogue presents an innovative conversation between five scholars from different backgrounds on a range of central issues facing archaeology today. Interspersing detailed investigations of critical theoretical... more
Archaeological Theory in Dialogue presents an innovative conversation between five scholars from different backgrounds on a range of central issues facing archaeology today. Interspersing detailed investigations of critical theoretical issues with dialogues between the authors, the book interrogates the importance of four themes at the heart of much contemporary theoretical debate: relations, ontology, posthumanism, and Indigenous paradigms. The authors, who work in Europe and North America, explore how these themes are shaping the ways that archaeologists conduct fieldwork, conceptualize the past, and engage with the political and ethical challenges that our discipline faces in the twenty-first century. The unique style of Archaeological Theory in Dialogue , switching between detailed arguments and dialogical exchange, makes it essential reading for both scholars and students of archaeological theory and those with an interest in the politics and ethics of the past.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Anthropology, Ontology, Posthumanism, Actor Network Theory, and 15 moreIndigenous Archaeololgy, Phenomenology, Post-Colonialism, Meta-Ontology, Materiality (Anthropology), Archaeological Theory, Object Oriented Ontology, Relationality, Collaborative Archaeology, Decolonization, Feminist Posthumanism, Assemblage Theory, Ontological Turn, Indigenous Paradigm, and Relational Archaeology
Research Interests:
About the Book: Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium provides an accessible account of the changing world of archaeological theory. It charts the emergence of the new emphasis on relations as well as engaging with current... more
About the Book: Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium provides an accessible account of the changing world of archaeological theory. It charts the emergence of the new emphasis on relations as well as engaging with current theoretical trends and the thinkers archaeologist regularly employ. This book will be an essential guide to cutting-edge theory for students and for professional wishing to reacquaint themselves with this field.
Research Interests: Semiotics, Anthropology, Practice theory, Material Culture Studies, Postcolonial Studies, and 19 morePosthumanism, Phenomenology, Archaeological Method & Theory, Charles S. Peirce, Materiality (Anthropology), Archaeological Theory, Object Oriented Ontology, Gender and identity (Archaeology), Archaeology of Identity, Tim Ingold, History of Archaeology, Agency, Symmetrical Archaeology, New Materialism, Biography of Objects, Object Agency/Material Agency, Archaeology of personhood, Ontological Turn, and Theory of Entanglement
Research Interests: Native American Studies, Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Anthropology, Historical Archaeology, and 15 moreSocial Sciences, Material Culture Studies, Postcolonial Studies, Posthumanism, North American archaeology, Postcolonial Theory, Materiality (Anthropology), Archaeological Theory, Consumption and Material Culture, History of Indigenous Peoples, Native American Anthropology, Culture Contact, New World Archaeology, Archaeology of Colonialism, and Trade Networks
Now available in paperback Overview: Historical archeology studies once relied upon a binary view of colonialism: colonizers and colonized, the colonial period and the postcolonial period. The international contributors to this... more
Now available in paperback
Overview:
Historical archeology studies once relied upon a binary view of colonialism: colonizers and colonized, the colonial period and the postcolonial period. The international contributors to this volume scrutinize imperialism and expansionism through an alternative lens that looks beyond simple dualities to explore the variously gendered, racialized, and occupied peoples of a multitude of faiths, desires, associations, and constraints. Colonialism is not a phase in the chronology of a people but a continuous phenomenon that spans the Old and New Worlds. Most important, the contributors argue that its impacts--and, in some instances, even the same processes set in place by the likes of Columbus--are ongoing.
Inciting a critical study of the lasting consequences of ancient and modern colonialism on descendant communities, this wide-ranging volume includes essays on Roman Britain, slavery in Brazil, and contemporary Native Americans. In its efforts to define the scope of colonialism and the comparability of its features, this collection challenges the field to go beyond familiar geographical and historical boundaries and draws attention to unfolding colonial futures.
Overview:
Historical archeology studies once relied upon a binary view of colonialism: colonizers and colonized, the colonial period and the postcolonial period. The international contributors to this volume scrutinize imperialism and expansionism through an alternative lens that looks beyond simple dualities to explore the variously gendered, racialized, and occupied peoples of a multitude of faiths, desires, associations, and constraints. Colonialism is not a phase in the chronology of a people but a continuous phenomenon that spans the Old and New Worlds. Most important, the contributors argue that its impacts--and, in some instances, even the same processes set in place by the likes of Columbus--are ongoing.
Inciting a critical study of the lasting consequences of ancient and modern colonialism on descendant communities, this wide-ranging volume includes essays on Roman Britain, slavery in Brazil, and contemporary Native Americans. In its efforts to define the scope of colonialism and the comparability of its features, this collection challenges the field to go beyond familiar geographical and historical boundaries and draws attention to unfolding colonial futures.
Research Interests:
Research Interests: American History, Ethnohistory, Native American Studies, Archaeology, Anthropology, and 15 moreHistorical Anthropology, Pragmatism, Humanities, Historical Archaeology, Social Sciences, Practice theory, Postcolonial Studies, Indigenous Archaeololgy, Archaeological Method & Theory, Social Archaeology, Native American (History), Ethnogenesis (archaeology), Ethnogenesis, Archaeology of Colonialism, and Archaeology of ethnicity and ethnogenesis
Through an archaeology of Fort La Cloche, a nineteenth-century Hudson's Bay Company post in Georgian Bay (Lake Huron, Canada), this paper explores parallels between historical archaeology and posthumanism. The posthumanities identify and... more
Through an archaeology of Fort La Cloche, a nineteenth-century Hudson's Bay Company post in Georgian Bay (Lake Huron, Canada), this paper explores parallels between historical archaeology and posthumanism. The posthumanities identify and critique three key problems familiar to historical archaeologists: (1) the arbitrary prioritization of certain types of historical actors (usually White, male, settler colonial) as the apex and standard for all humanity; (2) dichotomous modes of thought that cleave the world into discrete (opposed) categories like "nature" versus "culture"; and (3) human exceptionalism, which frames human beings as fundamentally different-and separate-from all other living and nonliving things surrounding them. An archaeology of La Cloche offers insights into how these broader philosophical goals compare with the work of historical archaeologists. The intersection of the archival record with the archaeological collection, a large and varied assemblage of patent medicine bottles, porcelain doll parts, buttons, shotgun casings, and much more, provides new perspectives on the fur trade; it offers insights into the broader community at La Cloche, peopled not just by powerful company men but by children, woman, workers of various kinds and, of course, Ojibwe and other Indigenous peoples. Historical archaeology also focuses on the material conditions of the fort, documenting complicated and sticky relationships of dependence between people of all sorts and humble, nonhuman things. The paper concludes that historical archaeology and posthumanism stand to benefit from further engagement with one another, making recommendations for further growth.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Anthropology, Historical Anthropology, Humanities, Historical Archaeology, and 15 moreSocial Sciences, Material Culture Studies, Posthumanism, Archaeological Method & Theory, North American archaeology, Archaeological Theory, Anthropocentrism, Fur Trade Studies, Hudson's Bay Company, Canadian Archaeology, Anthropological Theory, Archaeology of Colonialism, Museum of Anthropology & Archaeology, Forts, and Fur Trade History
Research Interests:
North American brass projectile points conjure a variety of archaeological narra- tives. Depending on the interpreter and the context of interpretation, they serve as evidence for: simplistic replacement of local traditions by... more
North American brass projectile points conjure a variety of archaeological narra- tives. Depending on the interpreter and the context of interpretation, they serve as evidence for: simplistic replacement of local traditions by technologically supe- rior European-introduced materials; the homogenizing forces of global capitalism; nuanced and complicated Indigenous-colonial histories; and/or Indigenous surviv- ance and adaptability. Irrespective of the narratives that they inspire, however, brass projectiles remain under-studied and under-theorized in North American archaeol- ogy. This paper addresses this dearth by analyzing and rethinking a large museum assemblage of brass projectile points from Ontario. The analysis offers insights into the variability and history of brass projectiles, specifically as they relate to lithic tra- ditions. The brass assemblage under consideration points to the significance of New Materialist perspectives on relationality, on post-anthropocentrism, and on change and history. Whereas archaeological habits tend to characterize North American brass projectiles as permutations of “old” plus “new” with minimal engagement with the objects themselves, this paper thinks with brass points, seeking out new angles of understanding that recognize their novelty.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Anthropology, Social Sciences, Material Culture Studies, North American archaeology, and 15 moreArchaeological Theory, History of Indigenous Peoples, Human-Nonhuman Assemblages, Settler Colonial Studies, Great Lakes Archaeology, North American Indigenous History and Culture, Technological change, Culture Contact, New Materialism, Assemblage Theory, Museum Collections (Research), Archaeology of Colonialism, Brass, Historical Archaeology, and Metal projectile points
This paper provides an archaeological perspective on the Boy Scouts of America, placing special emphasis on Scout camps occupying Mohegan lands in southeastern Connecticut (USA) and focusing on the alteration of Indigenous and... more
This paper provides an archaeological perspective on the Boy Scouts of America, placing special emphasis on Scout camps occupying Mohegan lands in southeastern Connecticut (USA) and focusing on the alteration of Indigenous and Indigenous-colonial sites. Archaeological traces demonstrate how Scouts modified a range of stone features, both ancient and recent, and how they reorganized and redefined the land by naming and bounding their camps. Considering these patterns alongside Scout material culture, including the archaeological remains of Scout habitations, we discuss Boy Scout simulations of Indigenous and Indigenous-colonial histories. Drawing upon Indigenous knowledge and critique, we explore how Boy Scout camps "territorialize" whiteness. This involves the appropriation of Indigeneity as a means of escaping the trappings of...
Research Interests: Archaeology, Anthropology, Historical Archaeology, Postcolonial Studies, Indigenous Archaeololgy, and 15 moreNorth American (Archaeology), Colonialism, 20th century (History), Archaeological Theory, Archaeology of the Contemporary Past, History of Indigenous Peoples, Settler Colonial Studies, New England (History), Collaborative Archaeology, Appropriation, Gerald Vizenor, Connecticut History, Archaeology of Colonialism, North American Archeology, and Archaeology of the Present
This essay argues for the diversity and promise of posthuman approaches in archaeology by dispelling blanket critiques, by differentiating between distinct lines of post- anthropocentric thought and by pointing to parallels between... more
This essay argues for the diversity and promise of posthuman approaches in archaeology by dispelling blanket critiques, by differentiating between distinct lines of post- anthropocentric thought and by pointing to parallels between Posthumanism and collaborative Indigenous archaeologies. It begins by arguing that symmetrical archaeology is but one part of the diverse body of thought labelled ‘posthuman’. Next, it explores broader posthuman engagements with political issues relevant for collaborative Indigenous archaeologies, particularly concerns regarding under- represented groups in the field. Finally, it identifies flat ontologies as key components of posthuman approaches, clarifying what this term means for different lines of post- anthropocentric thought and briefly considering how the concept of flatness compares with Indigenous metaphysics.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Anthropology, Metaphysics, Social Sciences, Posthumanism, and 13 moreActor Network Theory, Indigenous Archaeololgy, North American (Archaeology), Archaeological Method & Theory, Archaeological Theory, Object Oriented Ontology, Community-Based Participatory Research, Collaborative Archaeology, New Materialism, Assemblage Theory, Flat Ontology, Collaborative Indigenous Research, and Postanthropocentrism
Birdstones are an enigmatic and diverse group of objects found across eastern North America with concentrations around the Great Lakes region. Via specula- tive interpretations of form, analogical comparison with other regions, and... more
Birdstones are an enigmatic and diverse group of objects found across eastern North America with concentrations around the Great Lakes region. Via specula- tive interpretations of form, analogical comparison with other regions, and consideration of basic contextual information, archaeologists think of birdstones as parts of canoes, flutes, unspecified ceremonial assemblages, and, most fre- quently, atlatls. Discourse and debate about birdstones largely neglects issues of material vibrancy and semiotic process, including the processes by which archae- ologists and others began to name and typify these objects in the late nineteenth century. This paper rethinks birdstones through a ‘more than representational’ approach that combines assemblage theory with Peircean semiotics. Although both lines of thought align with relational ontologies, non-representational critiques, and post-anthropocentrism, archaeologists rarely consider the two together. This approach helps us chart how birdstones emerged and evolved through a complicated set of human-nonhuman interactions that continue into the present.
Research Interests: Semiotics, Materials Science, Anthropology, Social Sciences, Material Culture Studies, and 15 moreTypology, Archaeological Method & Theory, Gilles Deleuze, Charles S. Peirce, North American archaeology, Archaeological Theory, Lithics, History of Indigenous Peoples, Great Lakes Archaeology, Material Semiotics, Representation, New Materialism, Assemblage Theory, Groundstone Analysis, and Birdstones
This paper maps and builds relations between posthumanism and the field of archaeology, arguing for vital and promising connections between the two. Posthuman insights on post-anthropocentrism, non-human multiplicities, and the... more
This paper maps and builds relations between posthumanism and the field of archaeology, arguing for vital and promising connections between the two. Posthuman insights on post-anthropocentrism, non-human multiplicities, and the minoritarian in the now intersect powerfully with archaeology’s multi-temporal and long-term interests in heterogenous and vibrant assemblages of people, places, and things, particularly the last few decades of ‘decolonial’ re- imaginings of the field. For these reasons, we frame archaeology as the historical science of posthumanism. We demonstrate the discipline’s breadth through three vignettes concerning archaeology’s unique engagements with multiplicities of objects, multiplicities of scales, and multiplicities of people. These examples, we argue, speak to the benefits of becoming posthuman archaeologists and archaeological posthumanists.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Anthropology, Interdisciplinarity, Posthumanism, Archaeological Method & Theory, and 14 moreCritical Posthumanism, Archaeological Theory, History of Archeology, Museums, Collaborative Archaeology, New Materialism, Multiplicity, Assemblage Theory, Relational Ontology, Human-Nonhuman relations, Feminist new materialism, Ontological Turn, Historical Science, and Postanthropocentrism
This report considers copper crescent-shaped objects from Ontario, contextualizing them within broader archaeological discussions of the Old Copper Complex. I focus on a small assemblage of antiquarian-collected crescents from the Royal... more
This report considers copper crescent-shaped objects from Ontario, contextualizing them within broader archaeological discussions of the Old Copper Complex. I focus on a small assemblage of antiquarian-collected crescents from the Royal Ontario Museum. A literature review comprises the bulk of this report; crescents recovered from sites located in the center of the Old Copper Complex, in current-day Wisconsin and Michigan, help to situate examples in the antiquarian collection. I discuss crescents in terms of their chronolo- gical and geographic breadth, their formal variation, and the different depositional contexts in which they are found. Three examples from the antiquarian collection represent novel forms of copper crescent that are not represented in the accepted typology. Two of these, collected approxima- tely 1,600 km apart from one another, closely resemble stone and copper ulu knives, each with a unique copper handle that once bore a haft. By situating this particular collection within broader discussions of native copper, this report demonstrates the continued importance of thinking through poorly- contextualized archaeological collections while remembering the limitations of rigid, typological thinking.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Anthropology, Material Culture Studies, Typology, Ontario Archaeology, and 13 moreMetallurgy, North American archaeology, History of Indigenous Peoples, Great Lakes Archaeology, Old Copper Complex, Materiality, Copper, Artifacts, Museum Collections (Research), Canadian Archaeology, North American History, Metal Working, and Antiquarian Collections
It is understandable that archaeologists studying the North American fur trade often do so through the excavation and analysis of terrestrial sites. This article takes an alternative approach, analyzing assemblages that resulted from... more
It is understandable that archaeologists studying the North American fur trade often do so through the excavation and analysis of terrestrial sites. This article takes an alternative approach, analyzing assemblages that resulted from canoe accidents. Recovered from eddies and rocky bottoms of the French and Winnipeg rivers in Ontario, Canada, these collections offer unique opportunities to consider new dimensions of these histories: acute examples of loss and failure. An exploratory comparison of river assemblages with terrestrial fur-trade collections reveals new information on the magnitude of such losses. We argue that these unique fur-trade assemblages demonstrate the need for less anthropocen-tric approaches in historical archaeology that place more emphasis on material affect and nonhuman energy flows (e.g., rivers). We explore this proposition further through close consideration of two of the most common artifact types in the river assemblages: axes and files. Closer attention to the material properties and affordances of these objects offers fresh perspectives on the ways in which materials infused and framed human social relations and capabilities, past and present.
Research Interests:
Currently on the rise in archaeology, ontological approaches promise new ways of engaging with alterity of various kinds-different people, different times, different forms, even different worlds. This work promises to aid in critical... more
Currently on the rise in archaeology, ontological approaches promise new ways of engaging with alterity of various kinds-different people, different times, different forms, even different worlds. This work promises to aid in critical reflections on the arbitrary nature of the Western gaze and to recognize and incorporate non-Western knowledge in new manners. There are, however, several challenges to address. First, as noted by several leading thinkers in this area, the present range of ontological approaches include contrasting theoretical underpinnings. Second, these approaches are rarely considered in relation to the practical challenges of specific archaeological cases, particularly contexts of settler colonialism in which practitioners are attuned to the potential colonial nature of their work. I divide ontologically engaged archaeologies into three related but distinct groups and use a small museum assemblage of seventeenth-century Wendat materials from Ontario to help think through these three theories. In comparing approaches, I outline their respective strengths, weaknesses, and points in need of further clarification. I conclude that the ontological turns offer new and valuable angles of articulation with archaeological materials but that archaeologists must adopt them cautiously if they are to avoid repeating or continuing some of the darkest parts of our (colonial) disciplinary history.
[ontology, archaeology, new materialism, archaeological theory, effigies, colonialism, Iroquoian archaeology, Ontario]
RESUMEN Actualmente se estánest´están desarrollando en la arqueología, aproximaciones ontoí ogicas que prometen nuevas formas de comprometerse con la alteridad de varios tipos-personas diferentes, tiempos diferentes, formas diferentes, aun mundos diferentes. Este trabajo promete ayudar en reflexiones críticas sobre la naturaleza arbitraria de la mirada occidental y para reconocer e incorporar conocimiento no occidental en nuevas formas. Hay, sin embargo , varios retos para abordar. Primero, como señaladose˜señalado por varios pensadores destacados en está area, el rango actual de aproximaciones ontoí ogicas incluye fundamentos té oricos contrastantes. Segundo, estas aproximaciones son consideradas raramente en relací on con los retos prácticospr´prácticos de casos arqueoí ogicos específicos, particularmente los contextos del colonialismo de pobladores en los cuales los profesionales estánest´están sintonizados con la naturaleza colonial potencial de su trabajo. Divido las arqueologías comprometidas ontoí ogicamente en tres grupos relaciona-dos pero distintos y uso un ensamblaje pequeñopeque˜pequeño de museo de materiales de los hurones del siglo XVII de Ontario para ayudar a pensar a travéstrav´través de estas tres teorías. Comparando las aproximaciones, bosquejo sus debilidades, for-talezas respectivas, y puntos en necesidad de clarificací on adicional. Concluyo que los cambios ontoí ogicos ofrecen ´ angulos de articulací on nuevos y valiosos con materiales arqueoí ogicos, pero que los arqué ologos los deben adoptar con cautela si van a evitar repetir o continuar algunas de las partes m ´ as oscuras de nuestra historia disciplinaria
[ontology, archaeology, new materialism, archaeological theory, effigies, colonialism, Iroquoian archaeology, Ontario]
RESUMEN Actualmente se estánest´están desarrollando en la arqueología, aproximaciones ontoí ogicas que prometen nuevas formas de comprometerse con la alteridad de varios tipos-personas diferentes, tiempos diferentes, formas diferentes, aun mundos diferentes. Este trabajo promete ayudar en reflexiones críticas sobre la naturaleza arbitraria de la mirada occidental y para reconocer e incorporar conocimiento no occidental en nuevas formas. Hay, sin embargo , varios retos para abordar. Primero, como señaladose˜señalado por varios pensadores destacados en está area, el rango actual de aproximaciones ontoí ogicas incluye fundamentos té oricos contrastantes. Segundo, estas aproximaciones son consideradas raramente en relací on con los retos prácticospr´prácticos de casos arqueoí ogicos específicos, particularmente los contextos del colonialismo de pobladores en los cuales los profesionales estánest´están sintonizados con la naturaleza colonial potencial de su trabajo. Divido las arqueologías comprometidas ontoí ogicamente en tres grupos relaciona-dos pero distintos y uso un ensamblaje pequeñopeque˜pequeño de museo de materiales de los hurones del siglo XVII de Ontario para ayudar a pensar a travéstrav´través de estas tres teorías. Comparando las aproximaciones, bosquejo sus debilidades, for-talezas respectivas, y puntos en necesidad de clarificací on adicional. Concluyo que los cambios ontoí ogicos ofrecen ´ angulos de articulací on nuevos y valiosos con materiales arqueoí ogicos, pero que los arqué ologos los deben adoptar con cautela si van a evitar repetir o continuar algunas de las partes m ´ as oscuras de nuestra historia disciplinaria
Research Interests: Social Theory, Archaeology, Anthropology, Humanities, Historical Archaeology, and 15 moreSocial Sciences, Museum Studies, Material Culture Studies, Postcolonial Studies, Posthumanism, Archaeological Method & Theory, Ontario Archaeology, Materiality (Anthropology), Archaeological Theory, Archaeology of Pipes and Smoking, New Materialism, Archaeology of Colonialism, Ontological Turn, Effigy Pipes, and Relational Archaeology
There is little doubt that Indigenous, collaborative, and community-based archaeologies offer productive means of reshaping the ways in which archaeologists conduct research in North America. Scholarly reporting, however, typically places... more
There is little doubt that Indigenous, collaborative, and community-based archaeologies offer productive means of reshaping the ways in which archaeologists conduct research in North America. Scholarly reporting, however, typically places less emphasis on the ways in which Indigenous and collaborative versions of archaeology influence our interpretations of the past and penetrate archaeology at the level of theory. In this article, we begin to fill this void, critically considering archaeological research and teaching at Mohegan in terms of the deeper impacts that Indigenous knowledge, interests, and sensitivities make via collaborative projects. We frame the collaboration as greater than the sum of its heterogeneous components, including its diverse human participants. From this perspective, the project produces new and valuable orientations toward current theoretical debates in archaeology. We address these themes as they relate to ongoing research and teaching at several eighteenth and nineteenth-century sites on the Mohegan Reservation in Uncasville, Connecticut.
Il ne fait aucun doute que l'archéologie des nations amérindiennes, l'archéologie collaborative et l'archéologie communau-taire offrent une variété de démarches pour refaçonner la façon dont les archéologues nord-américains effectuent leur recher-che. Toutefois, les publications mettent en général moins l'accent sur la façon dont les archéologies communautaire et amérindienne influencent l'interprétation du passé au niveau théorique. Dans cet article, nous cherchons à combler cette lacune en examinant de façon critique la recherche et l'enseignement effectués chez les Mohegan, surtout en ce qui a trait aux impacts profonds qu'apporte une approche collaborative sur la pratique archéologique en mettant en valeur les connais-sances, les préoccupations et les sensibilités des nations amérindiennes. Nous envisageons la collaboration comme étant plus grande que la somme de ses composantes hétérogènes, y compris les participants humains. De ce point de vue, ce projet propose de nouvelles directions pour les débats théoriques en archéologie. Nous illustrons ces thèmes à travers la recherche et l'enseignement effectués sur plusieurs sites des XVIII e et XIV e siècles situés sur la Réserve Mohegan à Uncasville, Connecticut.
Il ne fait aucun doute que l'archéologie des nations amérindiennes, l'archéologie collaborative et l'archéologie communau-taire offrent une variété de démarches pour refaçonner la façon dont les archéologues nord-américains effectuent leur recher-che. Toutefois, les publications mettent en général moins l'accent sur la façon dont les archéologies communautaire et amérindienne influencent l'interprétation du passé au niveau théorique. Dans cet article, nous cherchons à combler cette lacune en examinant de façon critique la recherche et l'enseignement effectués chez les Mohegan, surtout en ce qui a trait aux impacts profonds qu'apporte une approche collaborative sur la pratique archéologique en mettant en valeur les connais-sances, les préoccupations et les sensibilités des nations amérindiennes. Nous envisageons la collaboration comme étant plus grande que la somme de ses composantes hétérogènes, y compris les participants humains. De ce point de vue, ce projet propose de nouvelles directions pour les débats théoriques en archéologie. Nous illustrons ces thèmes à travers la recherche et l'enseignement effectués sur plusieurs sites des XVIII e et XIV e siècles situés sur la Réserve Mohegan à Uncasville, Connecticut.
Research Interests: History, Archaeology, Anthropology, Posthumanism, Indigenous Archaeololgy, and 15 moreArchaeological Method & Theory, Postcolonial Theory, Archaeological Theory, Archaeological Fieldwork, Material Culture, New England (History), Collaborative Archaeology, Decolonization, New England Archaeology, Connecticut Archaeology, Connecticut History, Indigenous History, Archaeology of Colonialism, Ontological Turn, and Relational Archaeology
Revisiting fur trade collections at the Royal Ontario Museum, this essay explores connections and potential interplay between historical archaeology and assemblage theory. With few exceptions, archaeologists studying Bmodernity^ over the... more
Revisiting fur trade collections at the Royal Ontario Museum, this essay explores connections and potential interplay between historical archaeology and assemblage theory. With few exceptions, archaeologists studying Bmodernity^ over the last 500 years—including those studying the fur trade—have paid little attention to assemblage theory. Also referred to as Bnew materialisms,^ assemblage theory highlights the qualities and vibrancies of substances, their relationality, and their part in energy flows. These distinctly non-anthropocentric emphases present challenges to standard notions of humanity employed in historical archaeology. Building on this general premise, we experiment with B(re)assembling^ historical archaeology by rethinking and reframing aspects of the North American fur trade as it relates to rivers. Archaeological assemblages collected from the beds of several major riverways in Ontario speak to common themes studied in historical archaeology, yet also attest to the ways in which the fur trade depended upon harnessing river power that often acted back in unpredictable and sometimes violent ways. Brought into dialogue with records kept by traders, the collections offer useful perspectives on the deep entanglements between fur trade histories and rivers. From an assemblage perspective, we use these examples to reframe the role of non-human forces in the fur trade and to further challenge dualisms between nature/culture and human/non-human in historical archaeology.
Research Interests: History, Archaeology, Anthropology, Historical Archaeology, Globalization, and 11 moreCultural Heritage, Posthumanism, Archaeological Method & Theory, Ontario Archaeology, Rivers, Archaeological Theory, Underwater Archaeology, Fur Trade Studies, New Materialism, Museum Collections (Research), and Archaeology of Colonialism
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... more
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 (northeastern 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-humanism; New Materialism; pragmatism; flat ontology; postcolonialism; archaeologies of colonialism; Native North America. .. if we waited long enough, if we could observe planetary dynamics at geological time scales, the rocks and mountains which define the most stable and durable traits of our reality would dissolve into the great underground lava flows of which they are but temporary hardenings DeLanda (1995, 8).
Research Interests: History, Archaeology, Anthropology, Pragmatism, Cultural Heritage, and 17 morePosthumanism, Archaeological Method & Theory, North American archaeology, Postcolonial Theory, Materiality (Anthropology), Archaeological Theory, Human-Nonhuman Assemblages, New England (History), New Materialism, New England Archaeology, Assemblage Theory, Stone, Vibrant Materialism, Dry Stone Walling, Flat Ontology, Theory of Entanglement, and Vibrant Matter
In this essay, we explore the gathering power of rivers, highlighting their role in constituting fur trade history. We argue that, as components of the riverine landscape, rapids and portages are deserving of our archaeological attention.... more
In this essay, we explore the gathering power of rivers, highlighting their role in constituting fur trade history. We argue that, as components of the riverine landscape, rapids and portages are deserving of our archaeological attention. We illustrate this through two examples. The first one emphasizes the importance of portages and places in the establishment of trade posts like Réaume’s Leaf River Post in Minnesota, as well as the social relations that are entangled in this use of space. Portages, or “carrying places,” were land-based paths that river travelers took in order to circumvent rapids or waterfalls. Portages and rivers are therefore closely related; portages, by definition, depend on the rivers for their identities. The second example draws from our current research on underwater archaeological collections recovered from Ontario’s riverbeds. It highlights the materiality of the rivers themselves, and their indomitable gathering power.
Research Interests:
This chapter considers the current state and future of archaeological studies of Native American diaspora and ethnogenesis. It begins with an exploration of the broader literature concerning diaspora and ethnogenesis, comparing these... more
This chapter considers the current state and future of archaeological studies of Native American diaspora and ethnogenesis. It begins with an exploration of the broader literature concerning diaspora and ethnogenesis, comparing these branches of scholarship with the specific conditions—epistemological, historical, and political—of archaeologies of indigenous North America. The challenges and benefits of studying Native American diaspora and ethnogenesis are highlighted. The future of such studies is explored in relation to recent moves toward post-humanism that challenge archaeologists to ask crucial questions on who and what constitutes a community. Drawing briefly upon several case studies throughout, the essay places most emphasis on the diaspora and ethnogenesis of the Brothertown Indians. It concludes that notions of diaspora and ethnogenesis stand to make important contributions to the decolonization of indigenous history in both academic and public venues.
Research Interests: Native American Studies, Anthropology, Historical Archaeology, Postcolonial Studies, Posthumanism, and 12 moreIdentity (Culture), Race and Ethnicity, Colonialism, Culture, Diaspora Studies, Community, Archaeological Theory, Culture Contact, Plurality, Ethnogenesis, Archaeology of Colonialism, and Survivance
In this essay we consider recent developments within the Mohegan Archaeological Field School, a 20-year-old indigenous collaborative archaeology project that runs annually on the Mohegan Reservation in Uncasville, Connecticut, U.S.A. We... more
In this essay we consider recent developments within the Mohegan Archaeological Field School, a 20-year-old indigenous collaborative archaeology project that runs annually on the Mohegan Reservation in Uncasville, Connecticut, U.S.A. We focus on the impacts of three major transformations: (1) the forging of a new and ever-evolving collaborative relationship between the Tribe and an academic archaeologist (the first author); (2) the appointment of the first Mohegan Tribal Historical Preservation Officer (the second author); and (3) the diversification of student cohorts, which relates directly to the field school’s association with a British university. Each of these changes helped to foster a diverse ‘community’ archaeology project that stands to
make substantive contributions to the Tribe, to archaeological pedagogy, and to academic archaeology. We frame our discussion in terms of thebroader implications of these changes and new directions for indigenous, collaborative, and community archaeologies in general.
make substantive contributions to the Tribe, to archaeological pedagogy, and to academic archaeology. We frame our discussion in terms of thebroader implications of these changes and new directions for indigenous, collaborative, and community archaeologies in general.
Research Interests: Native American Studies, Archaeology, Anthropology, Pragmatism, Historical Archaeology, and 13 moreCultural Heritage, Postcolonial Studies, Indigenous Archaeololgy, Pedagogy, North American archaeology, Archaeological Fieldwork, Archaeological theory and practice, Native American Anthropology, New England (History), Community-Based Participatory Research, Collaborative Archaeology, New England Archaeology, and Archaeology of Colonialism
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
“Brothertown” was the name given a multitribal Christian settlement of English-speaking native peoples that was founded in the late eighteenth century. In this essay I explore the give-and-take of social identity from the perspective of... more
“Brothertown” was the name given a multitribal Christian settlement of English-speaking native peoples that was founded in the late eighteenth century. In this essay I explore the give-and-take of social identity from the perspective of written correspondence between Brothertown Indians and outsiders, both Indian and Euroamerican. I focus specifically on the name Brothertown, tracing its emergence and transformation through time and assessing its importance in the unfolding of Brothertown history. Shifting uses of the name speak to social identity as negotiated between authors and addressees, while broader considerations of the name within the politics of colonial North America reveal the centrality of ethnonymy and other modes of reference in shaping colonial interactions.
Research Interests:
The Brothertown Indian community formed in the late eighteenth century when Christian factions of several Algonquian tribes from Rhode Island, Connecticut, and coastal New York moved west together in hopes of escaping the land politics... more
The Brothertown Indian community formed in the late eighteenth century when Christian factions of several Algonquian tribes from Rhode Island, Connecticut, and coastal New York moved west together in hopes of escaping the land politics and corrupting influences of colonial culture on the East Coast. The community settled in central New York State for a time, but relocated once again to current-day Brothertown, Wisconsin in the 1830s. Established in 2006, the Brothertown Archaeology Project explores Brothertown history from the perspective of collaborative historical archaeology. Data collected from Brothertown cemeteries during the first few seasons of the project offer valuable perspectives on Brothertown commemoration practices and the changes they underwent between 1780 and 1910. When compared with larger trends in Native American and Euroamerican commemoration, these data yield new insights into history, memory, and materiality at Brothertown and speak to the politics of post-Columbian North America, both past and present.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Archaeology, Anthropology, Historical Archaeology, Posthumanism, Social Interaction, and 12 moreColonialism, Post-Colonialism, North American archaeology, Archaeological Theory, Critical Indigenous Methodologies, North American Indigenous History and Culture, Indigenous Feminisms, Collaborative Archaeology, Archaeological Method and Theory, Decolonization, Archaeology of Colonialism, and Ontological Turn
Research Interests: Native American Studies, Archaeology, Anthropology, Pragmatism, Material Culture Studies, and 10 morePostcolonial Studies, Posthumanism, Indigenous Knowledge, North American archaeology, Materiality (Anthropology), Archaeological Theory, Archaeology of Colonialism, Political Archaeology, Ontological Turn, and Knowledge Represntation
Research Interests: History, Native American Studies, Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Anthropology, and 8 moreHistorical Anthropology, Historical Archaeology, Material Culture Studies, Archaeological Method & Theory, Archaeological Theory, Consumption and Material Culture, Historical Archaeology of Native Americans, and Archaeology of Colonialism
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Comment on Ghisleni's Contingent Persistence
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21(1):138-139.
Research Interests:
The Mohegan archaeological field school teaches archaeology using an innovative collaborative approach. Students learn archaeological method and theory while surveying and excavating colonial-era sites on the Mohegan Reservation in... more
The Mohegan archaeological field school teaches archaeology using an innovative collaborative approach. Students learn archaeological method and theory while surveying and excavating colonial-era sites on the Mohegan Reservation in Uncasville, Connecticut. The Mohegan field school operates as an equal partnership between the Mohegan Tribe and Tufts Anthropology. The project is designed to respect the sensitivities, interests, and needs of the Mohegan Tribe while conducting rigorous archaeological research. The field school brings together students and staff of diverse backgrounds to learn about colonial history, Mohegan history and heritage, the history of North American archaeology, andnot least important-the often-troubled relationship between archaeologists and Indigenous communities. While taking the field school, students stay on the Connecticut College campus.
The course is conducted as an in-person intensive in Connecticut. The course hours are approximately 8:30am to 4:30pm Monday-Friday. Transportation from dormitories to field sites and any course related field trips will be provided. Combination of classroom learning via lectures, speakers, readings, etc. and field learning, including daily fieldwork.
Students interested in enrolling should complete this application: https://forms.gle/ bdPdDuxV1jsQswv37 The program will begin reviewing applications on March 1 and will continue accepting applications until the program is full. Feel free to contact Dr. Craig Cipolla with any questions, Craig.Cipolla @tufts.edu.
The course is conducted as an in-person intensive in Connecticut. The course hours are approximately 8:30am to 4:30pm Monday-Friday. Transportation from dormitories to field sites and any course related field trips will be provided. Combination of classroom learning via lectures, speakers, readings, etc. and field learning, including daily fieldwork.
Students interested in enrolling should complete this application: https://forms.gle/ bdPdDuxV1jsQswv37 The program will begin reviewing applications on March 1 and will continue accepting applications until the program is full. Feel free to contact Dr. Craig Cipolla with any questions, Craig.Cipolla @tufts.edu.
Research Interests:
This summer the Mohegan Tribal Historic Preservation Office and Tufts University Anthropology are proud to sponsor a workshop in Collaborative Indigenous Archaeology. We welcome Indigenous participants, age 18+, for a free training... more
This summer the Mohegan Tribal Historic Preservation Office and Tufts University Anthropology are proud to sponsor a workshop in Collaborative Indigenous Archaeology. We welcome Indigenous participants, age 18+, for a free training workshop in archaeological fieldwork and historic preservation. Participants will learn about archaeological method and theory, including pedestrian and shovel test pit survey, excavation, basic laboratory work and basic artifact identification. No previous experience required.
Research Interests:
More details here: https://ifrglobal.org/program/us-ct-mohegan/
Research Interests:
The Mohegan field school studies colonial-era sites on the Mohegan Reservation in an innovative collaborative setting. https://ifrglobal.org/program/us-ct-mohegan/
Research Interests: History, Archaeology, Anthropology, Indigenous Archaeololgy, Northeastern North America (Archaeology), and 9 moreArchaeological Method & Theory, Archaeological Fieldwork, New England (History), Collaborative Archaeology, Decolonization, Archaeological Field School, Archaeological Pedagogy, Postcolonialism, and Collaborative Indigenous Research
Mohegan Field School 2018. Please circulate widely.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Anthropology, Historical Anthropology, Pragmatism, Historical Archaeology, and 15 morePublic Archaeology, Indigenous Archaeololgy, Archaeological Method & Theory, Colonialism, Post-Colonialism, Archaeological Theory, Settler Colonial Studies, New England (History), Decolonial Thought, Collaborative Archaeology, Decolonization, New England Archaeology, 17th & 18th Century New England History, Archaeological Field School, and Archaeological Pedagogy
Please circulate. The Mohegan Archaeological Field School is now accepting students for summer 2017. Scholarships available, see IFR website: https://ifrglobal.org/program/us-ct-mohegan/
Research Interests:
This summer, the Mohegan Tribe is sponsoring a two-week workshop in Tribal Archaeology. We hope to welcome indigenous participants and teach them about the Mohegan Tribal Historic Preservation Office and the Mohegan Archaeological Field... more
This summer, the Mohegan Tribe is sponsoring a two-week workshop in Tribal Archaeology. We hope to welcome indigenous participants and teach them about the Mohegan Tribal Historic Preservation Office and the Mohegan Archaeological Field School. Participants will gain exposure to the basics of collaborative archaeological field methods.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Come work with me!
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Register here: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_m6B1UkAeS3SYsyV_d3iLzQ Featuring plenary speakers Ben Alberti and Kisha Supernant with presentations from Oliver Harris, Sophie Moore, Rachel Crellin, Lindsay Montgomery, and Craig... more
Register here: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_m6B1UkAeS3SYsyV_d3iLzQ
Featuring plenary speakers Ben Alberti and Kisha Supernant with presentations from Oliver Harris, Sophie Moore, Rachel Crellin, Lindsay Montgomery, and Craig Cipolla
Featuring plenary speakers Ben Alberti and Kisha Supernant with presentations from Oliver Harris, Sophie Moore, Rachel Crellin, Lindsay Montgomery, and Craig Cipolla
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This talk targets several recent directions in archaeological theory that seek to " decenter " humans, to consider non-human agency and material vibrancy, or to seriously engage with radical alterity (or difference). These... more
This talk targets several recent directions in archaeological theory that seek to " decenter " humans, to consider non-human agency and material vibrancy, or to seriously engage with radical alterity (or difference). These approaches—circulating phrases such as " symmetrical archaeologies, " " new materialisms, " and the " ontological turn toward things " —are often blanketed under the banner " posthumanism. " I explore what this term means for archaeologists, the variety of different approaches at work beneath it, and the ways in which archaeologists have transformed some of these ideas, often mined from the writings of philosophers.
Research Interests:
This is an interview I did in Spring 2018 with the Ontario Archaeological Society. Arch Notes 23(3):5-7.
Research Interests:
We're giving a few talks in February on our new book from Routledge. Please join us.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This is a traveling exhibition by the Swedish History Museum; we've added in a new component that explores the Vikings in Canada. https://www.rom.on.ca/en/exhibitions-galleries/exhibitions/vikings-the-exhibition
Opens November 4th, 2017
Opens November 4th, 2017
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Blog post describing recent work by two Wyandot artists, Richard Zane Smith and Catherine Tammaro, in the Royal Ontario Museum's New World Archaeology Department. Richard and Catherine are using archaeological collections to revitalizing... more
Blog post describing recent work by two Wyandot artists, Richard Zane Smith and Catherine Tammaro, in the Royal Ontario Museum's New World Archaeology Department. Richard and Catherine are using archaeological collections to revitalizing knowledge of ancestral ceramic techniques.
Research Interests:
This is a talk on February 18th at Brown's Joukowsky Institute (see flyer).