Archaeology, conflict and contemporary identity in the north of Ireland. Implications for theory and practice in comparative archaeologies of colonialism
Abstract
Current trends in historical archaeology emphasize the centrality of capitalism and colonial discourse in examining commonalities in the archaeologies of fictive worlds such as the British Atlantic. Yet far from informing archaeological practice, overly simplistic incorporation of postcolonial and neo-Marxian approaches in comparative archaeologies can actually impede our ability to disentangle the complexities of the early modern colonial experience in a socially relevant fashion. While the disparate colonial settlements of the Atlantic share a recognizable material culture as physical testament to the overarching impact of European expansion, contemporary implications and memories of colonial entanglements vary wildly. A critical consideration of the role of overtly theoretical approaches in developing a nuanced archaeology of the early modern period in the north of Ireland, where the construction of present-day identities is firmly rooted in dichotomous understandings of the impact of British expansion in the 16th and 17th centuries, raises broader questions about our responsibilities in addressing conflict and in redressing the disjuncture between espousing and practising theoretically informed archaeology.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A potential problem with the emphasis on creolization is its tendency to mask the violence, conflict, and power differences of the colonial Chesapeake behind a focus on blended material culture, unifying practices, and ethnogenesis.
“A potential problem inherent in this emphasis on creolization, though, is its tendency to mask the violence, conflict, and differences of power inherent in the colonial Chesapeake behind a focus on blended material culture, unifying practices, and the ethnogenesis of new peoples (Horning 2006b, p. 199).”
From The Archaeology of Native Societies in the Chesapeake: New Investigations and Interpretations (2011) · cites this paper as Horning 2006b
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Archaeology of Native Societies in the Chesapeake: New Investigations and Interpretations
Gallivan, M. (2011) · Journal of Archaeological Research · doi:10.1007/s10814-010-9048-4 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Horning, A. J.
- Corresponding author
- Horning, Audrey J.
- ORCID
- Horning, Audrey J.
- Venue
- Archaeological Dialogues
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2006-10-11
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 183-200
- ISSN
- 1380-2038 (ISSN-L)
- 1478-2294
- OpenAlex
- W2162676144
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 6.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Archaeological Dialogues (publishedVersion)
- Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
- Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Historical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Cultural Identity and Heritage
- Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
- Keywords
- early modern colonialism, north of Ireland, postcolonial archaeology, colonial conflict, contemporary identity, British Atlantic, colonial memory, colonial settlement, European expansion
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review