Cited by 36

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Beyond the Anthropocene: Defining the Age of Destruction

González-Ruibal, Alfredo·2018·Norwegian Archaeological Review

Abstract

The question of the Anthropocene has gained increased notoriety among archaeologists recently. Precisely because of that, it is in need of thorough critique. The aim of this article is not to rule out the concept of Anthropocene, but to point out some of its problems: the relationship of Anthropocenic discourses with the emergence of an all-embracing biopolitical science; the inadequacies of the term, which blames all humans equally for a specific effect of modernity and capitalism; its failure to accept a diversity of origins (but also the problem of accepting overly deep origins), and the shortcomings of adopting a geological framework for archaeology. I thus suggest that the discipline has to define its own eras – also for the contemporary period – and that the Age of Destruction could be an apt archaeological counterpart for the Anthropocene. One of the benefits of outlining an archaeological era is that it brings modernity and capitalism back to the fore, and with them issues of power and conflict that have been largely lost in recent post-anthropocentric debates.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00293652.2018.1544169

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Capitalism is wasteful; it uses up what it wants and leaves entire regions and populations to ruin.

    “Capitalism is wasteful.It uses up what it wants and leaves entire regions and populations to ruin (González-Ruibal, 2018;Khatchadourian, 2022;Soto, 2022).”

    From Archaeology in 2022: Counter‐myths for hopeful futures (2024) · cites this paper as González-Ruibal, 2018

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. 10.1017/9781108525633 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Berman M., 1983, All that is solid melts into air: The experience of modernity
  3. 10.1016/j.quaint.2016.10.002 · DOI
  4. Braidotti R., 2013, The posthuman
  5. 10.1007/s10814-015-9087-y · DOI
  6. Braje T.J., 2018, Current Anthropology, 59, 215
  7. 10.1016/j.ancene.2013.08.003 · DOI
  8. 10.1002/gea.2017.32.issue-5 · DOI
  9. Clastres P., 1974, La société contre l’Etat
  10. 10.1177/2053019618800234 · DOI
  11. Criado-Boado F., 1993, SPAL, 2
  12. Criado-Boado F., 2018, PH: Boletín del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico, 95, 115
  13. Crist E., 2016, Anthropocene or capitalocene? Nature, History, and the Crisis of Capitalism, 14
  14. 10.1007/3-540-26590-2_3 · DOI
  15. 10.1023/B:CLIM.0000004708.74871.62 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1177/1359183515624128 · DOI
  17. 10.1007/s11759-010-9125-9 · DOI
  18. Edgeworth M., 2014, Journal of Contemporary Archaeology, 1, 73
  19. 10.1144/SP395.3 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1177/2053019614565394 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1098/rspb.2012.2845 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1016/j.ancene.2014.05.003 · DOI
  23. Feshbach M., 1993, Ecocide in the USSR: Health and Nature under Siege
  24. Foucault M., 1968, L’archéologie du savoir
  25. Foucault M., 2004, Naissance de la biopolitique: cours au colláege de France (1978-1979)
  26. 10.4324/9780203068632 · DOI
  27. González-Ruibal A., 2019, An archaeology of the contemporary era
  28. 10.1080/09502380601162514 · DOI
  29. 10.1215/22011919-3615934 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Harman G., 2016, Immaterialism: objects and social theory
  31. 10.1038/nature14464 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1126/science.265.5180.1841 · DOI
  33. 10.1080/00938157.2017.1343023 · DOI
  34. Ion A., 2017, Current Swedish Archaeology, 25, 177, 10.37718/CSA.2017.18 · DOI
  35. Kristiansen K., 2014, Current Swedish Archaeology, 22, 11
  36. 10.1179/2042458215Y.0000000022 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.3406/ahess.1974.293501 · DOI
  38. 10.18352/hcm.474 · DOI
  39. LeCain T.J., 2009, Mass destruction: the men and giant mines that wired America and scarred the planet, 10.2307/j.ctt5hj633 · DOI
  40. 10.1016/j.jas.2013.07.005 · DOI
  41. Mayer A.J., 1981, The persistence of the old regime: Europe to the Great War
  42. 10.1215/08992363-15-1-11 · DOI
  43. Moore J.W., 2016, Anthropocene or Capitalocene?, 78
  44. Morton T., 2013, Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World
  45. Olivier L., 2013, Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives, 27
  46. Olsen B., 2010, In defense of things: archaeology and the ontology of objects
  47. 10.1017/S1380203817000216 · DOI
  48. 10.1177/0268580900015002005 · DOI · Paper page
  49. 10.1525/aa.2005.107.issue-1 · DOI
  50. 10.1016/j.ancene.2013.05.001 · DOI · Paper page
  51. 10.1080/00293652.2011.572677 · DOI
  52. Tainter J., 1990, The collapse of complex societies
  53. 10.1558/jca.v1i2.2033 · DOI
  54. Witmore C., Journal of Contemporary Archaeology
  55. 10.1177/0959683614544058 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
González-Ruibal, A.
Venue
Norwegian Archaeological Review
Published
2018-07-03
Volume
51
Issue
1-2
Pages
10-21
ISSN
  • 0029-3652
  • 1502-7678
Cited by
36
References
5
Language
en

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