Archaeological Encounters: The Role of the Speculative in Decolonial Archaeology

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Decolonization requires a conceptual rupture in order to be realized.

“I believe that decolonization requires a conceptual rupture in order to be realized.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Archaeological reconstruction based on multiple lines of evidence still has a bit of speculation at its core.

“We know that as we are engaged in a well-educated, highly-argued, expert-proof, theorized reconstruction of a past based on multiple lines of evidence, there is yet still a bit of speculation at its core.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The discipline represents its own history as a progressive line from ignorance to knowledge, reproducing colonial difference and epistemic violence and naturalizing its understanding of history.

“'The discipline represents its own history as a progressive line from ignorance to knowledge, wiring in its own genealogy the reproduction of colonial difference and epistemic violence, and at the same time naturalizing its own understanding of history' (Haber 2012, 60).”

• cites Haber 2012, 60Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

In designing research methodologies, a basic assumption is that archaeologists approach the past.

“In designing research methodologies, a basic assumption is that we, as archaeologists, approach the past.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

Including miti, or more generally some nonhumans as agentive, has potential to inform epistemic decolonization in archaeology.

“Including miti , or more generally, some nonhumans as agentive in such a manner, has potential to inform epistemic decolonization in archaeology.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Colonial histories of archaeology tend to follow certain formats that are constitutive of their becoming.

“colonial histories of archaeology tend to follow certain formats that are constitutive of their becoming.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Within North American archaeology, the speculative period is c. 1400-1840, a time of unscientific and unsystematic survey.

“Within North American archaeology, there is a category of time and archaeological research deemed the speculative period. These 400 or so years, between c. 1400 and 1840, is a time of unscientific and unsystematic survey, as outlined by Gordon Willey and Jeremey Sabloff in their History of American Archaeology (1993, 12-32).”

• cites Gordon Willey and Jeremey Sabloff in their History of American Archaeology (1993, 12-32)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Years of scientific claim, research design and methodology place the agentive nature of research in the hands of the archaeologist: archaeologists go to the site to find the past.

“Years of scientific claim, research design and methodology place the agentive nature of research in the hands of the archaeologist: we go to the site to find the past.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

Environmental conditions, ground cover, etc., can be considered actors, stakeholders, participants in research discussion.

“What we write up in our reports as caveats to our research, the various criteria that we cannot control but that significantly alter the results of our work, like environmental conditions, ground cover, etc., can be considered not only something we cannot control - but an actor, a stakeholder, a participant in our discussion of research.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Contemporary critical science opens itself up to experience, engages with creative forms of hypothesis and solution, and embraces the honesty of uncertainty.

“Contemporary critical science opens itself up to experience, engaging with creative forms of hypothesis and solution, and embraces the honesty of uncertainty.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

If antiquity approaches the archaeologist rather than vice versa, then we must contend with the contemporary nature of the encounter.

“if we acquiesce to the possibility that antiquity approaches the archaeologist (rather than vice versa), then that forces us to contend with the contemporary nature of the encounter.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

For indigenous peoples, decolonization is a real act with specific land rights; it is a demand for sovereignty.

“For indigenous peoples, the act of decolonization is a real one that has very specific land rights associated with it. It is not just another critical framework; it is a demand for sovereignty (Tuck and Yang 2012).”

• cites Tuck and Yang 2012Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

The context of representation is just as important as the context of the archaeological past.

“In such a way, the discussion refocuses on how this is about all things othered through time - it is about the representation of the artifact in contemporary archaeological scholarship - and thus the context of representation becomes just as important as the context of the archaeological past.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

It reorders/realigns and challenges our understandings of what the ontology of archaeology itself may be.

“It reorders/realigns and challenges our understandings of what the ontology of archaeology itself may be.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

This reorientation cannot yet be authored or controlled, and to recognize it while happening we must first recognize it in retrospect.

“But this reorientation is not one that we can yet author or control, and to begin to understand how we might try to recognize it while it is happening, we must first recognize it in retrospect.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

One of the earliest feminist utopic texts in the English language was Sultana's Dream, written in 1905 by Begum Rokeya Sakhawat Hussian.

“For example, one of the earliest feminist utopic texts in the English language was Sultana's Dream , written in 1905 by Begum Rokeya Sakhawat Hussian (2005 [1905]).”

• cites Hussian 2005 [1905]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

Afrofuturism and contemporary speculative fiction are not only about possible and alternative futures but importantly about reorganizing pasts, allowing the speculative to enter into how we understand and order that past.

“This is precisely why Afrofuturism and contemporary speculative fiction are not only about possible and alternative futures, but importantly about reorganizing pasts - allowing for the speculative to enter into how we understand and order that past.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

Epistemic decolonization is not a new name for epistemic critique; it is an active and purposeful undoing and un-disciplining.

“This epistemic decolonization is not a new name for epistemic critique: decolonization is an active and purposeful undoing and un-disciplining that we acknowledge as required (Haber 2012; Tuck and Yang 2012).”

• cites Haber 2012Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Tuck and Yang 2012Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

At the core of decolonization is a necessity of the past to be speculative.

“At the core of this project of decolonization is a necessity of the past to be speculative.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Campt's work allows one to find meaning in silence and consider quiet things as resistant and full of a different form of agency.

“Campt's work allows one to find meaning in the silence; it leads us to listen to silence as a form of quietness, opening the space to consider quiet things as resistant, and thus full of a different form of agency.”

• cites Campt 2017 sourceNot checked yet

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

Decolonization is no longer only an act of resistance; it now encapsulates the requirement for normative praxis to address critique and demonstrate change.

“Decolonization is no longer only an act of resistance: it now encapsulates the requirement for normative praxis to address the critique and demonstrate change.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

These critiques as stories were constructed through an engagement with anthropology.

“These critiques as stories were constructed through an engagement with anthropology.”

• cites Rieder 2008Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Inshallah pops us out of linearity and pushes us into vague ambiguities of space, allowing for a possible future happening whether or not one intends it.

“Inshallah pops us out of linearity and pushes us into vague ambiguities of space: there is a possible future happening - whether or not you intend it to be.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

Discursive representations of archaeological artifacts in the contemporary moment are still considered an act of representation.

“When confronted with the act of silencing, the subaltern-ness of things and the objectness of racialized bodies, what emerges is the recognition that discursive representations of the archaeological artifact in the contemporary moment are still considered an act of representation (Moten 2003; Berstein 2009).”

• cites Moten 2003Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Berstein 2009Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim.

Contemporary discursive and museological representation of ancient artifacts has a contemporary context of quietness.

“The contemporary discursive and museological representation of the ancient artifacts are then recognized as having a contemporary context of quietness, a sonic form that one has to learn what to listen for or to in order to communicate.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Donna Haraway has suggested that relationships between all things can be considered kin-making.

“These are the relationships that Donna Haraway (2015) has suggested can be considered kin-making.”

• cites Haraway 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

The ontological and epistemic are porous and inform each other.

“The boundaries between the two are porous, and they inform each other.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

In The War of the Worlds, Wells makes a direct comparison between the Martian invasion and British colonial expansion in Tasmania; the anticolonial impetus emerged from the critique of colonial technique and strategy from the metropole.

“In this story, Wells makes a direct comparison between the Martian invasion and British colonial expansion in Tasmania; the anticolonial impetus emerged from the critique of colonial technique and strategy, importantly, from the metropole.”

• cites Rieder 2008Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Begum Hussain was writing within a cohort of science-fiction writers in Bengal who had begun publishing sci-fi in magazines as early as 1896.

“Begum Hussain was writing within a cohort of science-fiction writers in Bengal who had begun publishing sci-fi in magazines as early as 1896 (Bhattacharya et al. 1989).”

• cites Bhattacharya et al. 1989Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

If we might exist in other languages without necessitating a linearity of time, then our approach to archaeology changes and the plausibility of archaeology or the deep past approaching us becomes possible.

“If we might exist in other languages without necessitating a linearity of time, then our approach to archaeology changes and the plausibility of archaeology or the deep past approaching us becomes possible.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Our relationships with miti have informed our professional approach to the past, and this entanglement disciplines us into our subjectivity as archaeologists.

“In so far as our relationships with miti have informed our professional approach to the past, the entanglement disciplines us into our subjectivity as archaeologists.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

The simultaneity of both aspects creates a fissure within which the speculative of archaeology finds a place.

“The simultaneity of both aspects creates a fissure within which the speculative of archaeology finds a place.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

There was in Sun Ra, and continues to be in his music, the witness of alternatives to all of this and what it's got going on.

“'There was in Ra, and continues to be in his music, the witness of alternatives to all of this and what it's got going on' (Baraka 1995, 254).”

• cites Baraka 1995Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Part of human limitations is that we impose human traits on things because we know them intimately.

“Part of our limitations of being human is that we impose human traits on things because we know them intimately.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Miti belongs to a process of our becoming.

“It belongs to a process of our becoming.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

It is never just the researcher who determines the outcome of research; rather, it is a negotiation, mediation, collaboration, and conversation between many different human and nonhuman stakeholders/participants.

“It brings to the forefront the idea that indeed, it is never just the researcher who determines the outcome of the research, but rather it is a negotiation, mediation, collaboration, and conversation between many different human and nonhuman stakeholders/participants.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Lacan's anticipatory forms of becoming are within the self and do not take into account how we continue to become in relation with things or each other.

“Although cognizant of a fluid past, these anticipatory forms of becoming are within the self - not taking into account the ways in which we continue to become in relation with things or each other.”

• cites Lacan 1981Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Participatory modes of interaction with miti are created to be more open to a potential future and are therefore speculative.

“Such participatory modes of interaction are created to be more open to a potential future, and thus in this respect, speculative.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Minerals in many societies are attributed with qualities and properties that most people in Western societies accord only to humans, plants, animals, and/or divine.

“Nicole Boivin attributed this to a particularly Western sensibility by articulating how 'minerals in many societies are attributed with qualities and properties that most people in Western societies accord only to humans, plants, animals, and/or divine' (Boivin 2004, 4).”

• cites Boivin 2004, 4Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

The process of disciplining the discipline has a deep ontological connection that informs how we know archaeological things.

“In addition to being an epistemic project, this process of disciplining the discipline also has a deep ontological connection that informs the ways in which we know archaeological things.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Archaeological encounters with miti acknowledge soil as communicative and collaborative and as having space within political discourse.

“Archaeological encounters with miti acknowledge soil as communicative and collaborative, and as having space within political discourse.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

English is somewhat limited in its ability to adequately account for future happenings.

“Having realized that English is somewhat limited in its ability to adequately account for future happenings, I would like to turn our attention to another language, Arabic.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Quiet is not an absence of articulation or utterance; it is a modality that surrounds and infuses sound with impact and affect, creating possibility for meaningful registration.

“'quiet is not an absence of articulation or utterance. Quiet is a modality that surrounds and infuses sound with impact and affect, which creates the possibility for it to register as meaningful.'”

• cites Tina Campt (2017, 4)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

To change/reorder/reorient epistemological bearings, there must be a moment we capture that allows us to do just that.

“In order to change/reorder/reorient our epistemological bearings, there must be a moment we capture that allows us to do just that.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Inshallah links time, some epistemic causality that is usually not orthodox, and the future.

“Perhaps one of the most colloquial words used in Arabic is inshallah , which links time, some epistemic causality that is usually not orthodox, and the future.”

• cites Slackman 2008Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Clift and Helani 2010Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Science fiction was being published in the colonies early on, while the metropole saw the work of H. G. Wells emerge, such as The War of the Worlds.

“Whereas science fiction was being published in the colonies early on, the metropole saw the work of H. G. Wells emerge, such as his widely popular The War of the Worlds (1898).”

• cites [1898]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Being and becoming is never linear, nor is it straight.

“But being and becoming, I would argue, is never linear, nor is it straight.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The episteme of archaeology is stronger than a simple turn of phrase.

“The episteme of archaeology, however, is stronger than a simple turn of phrase.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

The ontological is an essence that has capacity to shift into different materials; shapeshifting maintains meaning at core but has contingent manifestations depending on context.

“The ontological is not only an essence, but an essence that has the capacity to shift into different materials. There is a shapeshifting that maintains meaning at its core, but that also is full of contingent and shifting manifestations depending on context - for example, Indian popular cultural understandings around the 10 avatars of Vishnu.”

• cites Boivin 2000Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Unlike Lacan's future anterior, sym-poiesis is not a motion of autopoiesis but potential future becomings.

“As with Lacan's future anterior, this takes into account all past becomings; in contrast, though, this is not a motion of autopoiesis, but rather potential future becomings as an act of sympoiesis.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The move and call for a decolonized archaeology is fueled by a desire for multiple ontologies, anarchy, and something speculative and emancipatory.

“The move and call for a decolonized archaeology is fueled by a desire for multiple ontologies, for anarchy to create something different, something speculative, something emancipatory.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

There is a speculative nature to inshallah that provides the possibility of new worlds.

“There is a speculative nature to the word that provides the possibility of new worlds.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

It will take more than language to provide the possibility that the field will be decolonized.

“Inshallah , the field will be decolonized; but it will take more than language to provide that possibility.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Sym-poiesis allows for a temporal simultaneity, a becoming that moves in/through/between various scales of time.

“There is also a temporal simultaneity that sym-poiesis allows for; a becoming that moves in/through/between various scales of time.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The shift to transdisciplinary practices within archaeology is in part a result of that acknowledgment.

“In part, the shift to transdisciplinary practices within archaeology is a result of that acknowledgment.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

The ways in which we become are contextual and social.

“The ways in which we become are contextual, social even.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

It is through embracing the uncertainty of all futures that a focus on living, resilience, and hope can emerge.

“It is through embracing the uncertainty of all futures that a focus on living, resilience, and hope can emerge: these are the conversations emerging from within decolonizing discourses (Imarisha and Brown 2015; Todd 2016).”

• cites Imarisha and Brown 2015Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Todd 2016Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Our becoming is constitutive of a generative and collective project, and our research acknowledges the many layers and connections involved.

“Our becoming is constitutive of a generative and collective project, and as such, our research acknowledges the many layers and connections that are involved.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Miti does not exist only in the service of archaeology.

“But it must maintain a fluid position with regards to ours: miti does not exist only in the service of archaeology, but it could be argued that archaeology's existence is contingent upon miti .”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

H. G. Wells's work is considered an iconic example of colonialism-inspired sci-fi.

“His work is considered an iconic example of colonialism-inspired sci-fi (Rieder 2008).”

• cites Rieder 2008Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Some of our futures have always included parallel universes or utopic fantasies.

“In that capacity, some of our futures have always included parallel universes or utopic fantasies.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Within the archaeological episteme, there is an inability to contain such meanings.

“In witnessing and citing such epistemologies, there is recognition that within the archaeological episteme - that is, since the discipline was disciplined - there is an inability to contain such meanings.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The epistemic critique is a de-stabilizing and de-rooting form of decolonial anarchy.

“The epistemic critique then is a de-stabilizing and de-rooting form of decolonial anarchy.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

This sort of question creates a fluid, speculative, transhistorical framework of possible pasts/futures.

“It creates a fluid, speculative, transhistorical framework of possible pasts/futures (Gaylard 2008).”

• cites Gaylard 2008Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

In decolonizing the episteme, we decolonize internal understandings of ourselves as practitioners.

“For those of us, as accomplices, who are committed to archaeology's epistemic decolonization, there is recognition that in decolonizing the episteme we decolonize internal understandings of ourselves as practitioners (Fanon 1963).”

• cites Fanon 1963Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim.

Recognizing multi-species-becoming-with, multi-species co-making, making-together is an act of sym-poiesis rather than autopoiesis.

“This act recognizing the 'multi-species-becoming-with, multi-species co-making, making-together' is an act of sym-poiesis, rather than autopoiesis (Haraway and Kenney 2015, 260).”

• cites Haraway and Kenney 2015Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

This process has the capacity to move beyond what in a Lacanian sense involves autopoiesis.

“And so this process has the capacity to move beyond what (in a Lacanian sense) involves autopoieis.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Any sentence constructed in English can never articulate the sense of something about to happen.

“Any sentence I construct in English can never articulate the sense of something about to happen.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The future participle as grammatical code does not exist in the English language.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The history of blackness is anticipatory resistance.

“the history of blackness, as Fred Moten suggests, is anticipatory resistance (Moten 2003).”

• cites Moten 2003Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

In many communities, the focus is on resilience and innovation; the future is not uncertain, insecure, nor apocalyptic more than it always has been.

“And yet, in many communities, the focus is on resilience and innovation; the future is not uncertain, insecure, nor apocalyptic - at least no more than it always has had the potential to be (Todd 2016; Merata et al. 2017).”

• cites Todd 2016Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Merata et al. 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

Within a possible methodology of speculative archaeology, as kin we co-create our research and our project, and through that our pasts and futures.

“Within the possible methodology of a speculative archaeology, as kin we co-create our research and our project, and through that our pasts and futures.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

Becoming takes forms of sociality and relationships that transcend context internal to people and occur between all things.

“Such becoming are forms of sociality, forms of relationships that transcend becoming as context internal to people but between all things.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Rebecca Clift and Fadi Helani refer to this as the inshallah turn, as it marks a change or shift in the conversation topic.

“Rebecca Clift and Fadi Helani (2010, 359-362) refer to this as the inshallah turn, as it marks a change or shift in the conversation topic.”

• cites Clift and Helani 2010Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

These utopic fantasies encapsulate the decolonizing aesthetic that Walter Mignolo speaks of in the duality where an epistemic critique balances the futurist utopic vision.

“These utopic fantasies encapsulate the decolonizing aesthetic that Walter Mignolo (2012) speaks of in the duality where in one moment there is an epistemic critique that balances the futurist utopic vision.”

• cites Mignolo 2012Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Imagining a different future is central in a post-turn moment.

“Imagining a different future is central in a post-turn moment.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

Recognizing the silence of the archaeological object is an important step towards unraveling epistemic frameworks and providing space for decolonial reworking.

“Recognizing the silence of the archaeological object is an important step towards unraveling or un-disciplining our epistemic frameworks, providing space for a decolonial reworking or re-reading of these things.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Sci-fi does not just demonstrate future possibilities but future limits-the extent to which dreams of what we'll do remain captive to the things we've already done.

“As the writer and critic Noah Berlatsky (2014) correctly points out, 'sci-fi, then, doesn't just demonstrate future possibilities, but future limits - the extent to which dreams of what we'll do remain captive to the things we've already done.'”

• cites Berlatsky 2014Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Inshallah is completely ambiguous, somewhat unknowable, and potentially unreliable.

“Those familiar with its colloquial use will recognize the 'God Willing' nature of the word as completely ambiguous, somewhat unknowable, and potentially unreliable (Slackman 2008; see also Clift and Helani 2010).”

• cites Slackman 2008Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Clift and Helani 2010Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Not all human bodies are considered as precious as materials or lands or other nonhuman elements such as currency.

“As one pushes the line of questioning further, within the speculative space, it becomes imminently clear that not all human bodies are considered as precious as materials or lands or other nonhuman elements, such as currency.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

This recognition can move theory beyond the phenomenological as the only way to experience materiality.

“This recognition has the capacity then to move such theory beyond the phenomenological as the only way to experience materiality (see Van Dyke 2015).”

• cites Van Dyke 2015Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.