4 ms·

It is immensely interesting to see the de-westernization of modern archaeology .. it seems to be being forced by the artefacts themselves, which provide ample m

It is immensely interesting to see the de-westernization of modern archaeology .. it seems to be being forced by the artefacts themselves, which provide ample motivation and evidence that western ideals need not be applied to ancient ways. It is one of those subjects where the intersection of religious fervour and scientific rigour has produced endless falsehoods - yet with every scrape in the dirt we get more and more truth behind human history. As an armchair fan of archeological endeavours from Gobekli Tepe to the forests of the Amazon, I can only hope that the elevation of Great Zimbabwe in the human lexicon results in further enlightenment with regards to our human history. It is very rewarding to see the veils of christian political movements falling from the stage of archeological accomplishment. We need more of this.

dathinab 5y ago
It's less "de-westernization" and more a internationalization and the removal of racist ideology in archeology. Archeology was for decades deeply affected by racist believes, both directly and indirectly by building on-top of research which was affected without realizing it. Idk. why but people often forget that the race ideology (crossed with nationalism and religion) which is today often seen a "being a nazi thing" was very wide spread even before the German Nazis became a thing all around the western world (and also outside of the western world replacing "european-white supremacy" with e.g."japanese-asian supremacy", but that kinda doesn't matter for this discussion). A good example how the mindset affected "historic" research for a long time, is how for a long time it was believed that in pre-human history in each step of evolution there where always a few "evolved" sub-subspecies from a human predecessor and only one survived "by itself/without mixing". Which as it turns out is complete bs as there was a constant interbreeding of such species and the modern human is a result of this interbreeding (sure some species traits dominated, but either way it wasn't still constant DNA exchange of sub-species, i.e. "pre-humans" which are noticeable more different then any two modern humans of different ethnicity).
- boffinAudio 5y ago
  >internationalization = de-westernization Or do you consider that the rising economies and cultures of Africa are 'part of the west', now? I think it says a lot that a non-European archeologist had to do the field work on this site to start to convince the world that the prejudiced conclusions made decades ago were incorrect. I concur with you that people discount the racism of our cultures that existed prior to nazism - heck they do it with our extant cultures in the modern era too. There are plenty of examples in the modern era where racism and prejudice preclude an honest look at a nation states pre-history (cough Australia cough) and these, in many cases deep-rooted prejudices are most definitely an affliction of our modern era. Which is why it is great to see a non-Western academic address the issue of Great Zimbabwe in a way that reveals the truth of the matter - naysayers in the entrenched, hallowed European halls be damned ..
  - dathinab 5y ago
    Idk. the way I read it: de-westernization == removal of (modern) western researchers from the topic Internationalization == adding researchers of many/all nations Also I'm not so sure about the premise of "says a lot that a non-European archeologist had to do the field work on this site to start to convince the world". EDIT: I'm also not saying it's not a problem. I'm pretty sure I have seen "western" docus years ago which point out this problem (in general not necessary specific to that case).
NicoJuicy 5y ago
Why would you think de-westernization of archeology has anything to do with it or is even relevant? He won 2 awards for his research, 1 in 2019 from Antiquity. Which is from the UK and so western. I think most people want to find out the truth and that's it. The problem was that there was not much similar evidence for this architecture to buy build nearby, so some archeologists had wrong conclusions. It don't think anyone benefits from pushing a false dogma. At least, i don't see how they could benefit x centuries afterwards. On the contrary, the named archeologists could have had more success by acknowledging it's history ( even though they didn't acknowledged it) and helping investigation.
- boffinAudio 5y ago
  > Why would you think de-westernization of archeology has anything to do with it or is even relevant? Because it was mentioned in the article that the original discovering western archeologists, who were incredulous that such advanced construction could have come from the 'races' in the era, completely overlooked the fact that these buildings could have been constructed by the local indigenous people, for decades, until a non-western-indoctrinated archeologist came along and provided the counter argument. It was a wealth of information made unavailable to the local culture because of prejudice and bigotry, plain and simple - and this has been seen time and again in western archeology, which is not innocent in the "racist prejudice" department. >I think most people want to find out the truth and that's it. I think it depends whether the truth aligns with your funders goals and purposes or not. Certainly in the 19th and 20th centuries there are countless examples of 'archeology' degrading itself for the purposes of the institutions from where the funds are derived. And even today we still have the heinous situation that cultural artifacts are still 'being protected' in predominantly white european institutions (museums) due to the prejudices of the institutions towards the people from where the artifacts were stolen.
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    1) That's not what is says The article doesn't say they are doing it on purpose. Some archeologists didn't align with his thinking because 1) other similar locations aren't there and 2) not understanding of the Shona culture. 2) Those institutions actually awarded him 2 times for his discoveries, making him the only person to win it twice. Do you have an indication of something factual except a disagreement on interpreting findings? 3) As far as I know, a lot of those artifacts are bought by museums because of a seller or given in custody by a private collector. I don't know the circumstances of those transactions, but i don't even see how that's related to the article... ? May I ask if this is a "close to heart" article?

dathinab 5y ago

It's less "de-westernization" and more a internationalization and the removal of racist ideology in archeology. Archeology was for decades deeply affected by racist believes, both directly and indirectly by building on-top of research which was affected without realizing it. Idk. why but people often forget that the race ideology (crossed with nationalism and religion) which is today often seen a "being a nazi thing" was very wide spread even before the German Nazis became a thing all around the western world (and also outside of the western world replacing "european-white supremacy" with e.g."japanese-asian supremacy", but that kinda doesn't matter for this discussion). A good example how the mindset affected "historic" research for a long time, is how for a long time it was believed that in pre-human history in each step of evolution there where always a few "evolved" sub-subspecies from a human predecessor and only one survived "by itself/without mixing". Which as it turns out is complete bs as there was a constant interbreeding of such species and the modern human is a result of this interbreeding (sure some species traits dominated, but either way it wasn't still constant DNA exchange of sub-species, i.e. "pre-humans" which are noticeable more different then any two modern humans of different ethnicity).

boffinAudio 5y ago
>internationalization = de-westernization Or do you consider that the rising economies and cultures of Africa are 'part of the west', now? I think it says a lot that a non-European archeologist had to do the field work on this site to start to convince the world that the prejudiced conclusions made decades ago were incorrect. I concur with you that people discount the racism of our cultures that existed prior to nazism - heck they do it with our extant cultures in the modern era too. There are plenty of examples in the modern era where racism and prejudice preclude an honest look at a nation states pre-history (cough Australia cough) and these, in many cases deep-rooted prejudices are most definitely an affliction of our modern era. Which is why it is great to see a non-Western academic address the issue of Great Zimbabwe in a way that reveals the truth of the matter - naysayers in the entrenched, hallowed European halls be damned ..
- dathinab 5y ago
  Idk. the way I read it: de-westernization == removal of (modern) western researchers from the topic Internationalization == adding researchers of many/all nations Also I'm not so sure about the premise of "says a lot that a non-European archeologist had to do the field work on this site to start to convince the world". EDIT: I'm also not saying it's not a problem. I'm pretty sure I have seen "western" docus years ago which point out this problem (in general not necessary specific to that case).

NicoJuicy 5y ago

Why would you think de-westernization of archeology has anything to do with it or is even relevant? He won 2 awards for his research, 1 in 2019 from Antiquity. Which is from the UK and so western. I think most people want to find out the truth and that's it. The problem was that there was not much similar evidence for this architecture to buy build nearby, so some archeologists had wrong conclusions. It don't think anyone benefits from pushing a false dogma. At least, i don't see how they could benefit x centuries afterwards. On the contrary, the named archeologists could have had more success by acknowledging it's history ( even though they didn't acknowledged it) and helping investigation.

boffinAudio 5y ago
> Why would you think de-westernization of archeology has anything to do with it or is even relevant? Because it was mentioned in the article that the original discovering western archeologists, who were incredulous that such advanced construction could have come from the 'races' in the era, completely overlooked the fact that these buildings could have been constructed by the local indigenous people, for decades, until a non-western-indoctrinated archeologist came along and provided the counter argument. It was a wealth of information made unavailable to the local culture because of prejudice and bigotry, plain and simple - and this has been seen time and again in western archeology, which is not innocent in the "racist prejudice" department. >I think most people want to find out the truth and that's it. I think it depends whether the truth aligns with your funders goals and purposes or not. Certainly in the 19th and 20th centuries there are countless examples of 'archeology' degrading itself for the purposes of the institutions from where the funds are derived. And even today we still have the heinous situation that cultural artifacts are still 'being protected' in predominantly white european institutions (museums) due to the prejudices of the institutions towards the people from where the artifacts were stolen.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  1) That's not what is says The article doesn't say they are doing it on purpose. Some archeologists didn't align with his thinking because 1) other similar locations aren't there and 2) not understanding of the Shona culture. 2) Those institutions actually awarded him 2 times for his discoveries, making him the only person to win it twice. Do you have an indication of something factual except a disagreement on interpreting findings? 3) As far as I know, a lot of those artifacts are bought by museums because of a seller or given in custody by a private collector. I don't know the circumstances of those transactions, but i don't even see how that's related to the article... ? May I ask if this is a "close to heart" article?