Skip to main content

Anarco-archeology, inarcheologies, anarcheology

In Coimbra, during the Epistemologies of the South conference I met Hugo Abalos, an archeologist working in Spain, somewhere in the Pyrenees if I remember correctly. His group excavate the land looking for what the local communities want to find - their issues orient the research. It is a kind of a local archeology, disconnected from national projects and not submitted to a big picture single narrative about human history or how did it all happened since the origins. He calls it anarco-archeology because, I believe, it is not about researching into an arché but rather excavating the floor for what is underneath the exercises of orientation, location and imagination of those who daily step on it. It is indeed something that is much missing in places like Mexico and here in central Brazil where archeological sites are found and then abandoned for they could unveil inconvenient narratives for the official history; something closer to a do-it-yourself, empowering, distributed and plural excavation for the underground. Taking back the underlying narratives, and making them deterritorialize the quickly unified one-world account of the events in the planet. Excavate the floors against the many epistemicides perpetrated in the name of a supposedly common history.

It is interesting to compare his anarco-archeology with my three senses of anarcheology:
1.Anarche-ology: the study of the unruled, the ungoverned, the absence of command and its effects;
2.An-arche-ology: the study of what is groundless and doesn’t have a foundation;
3.An-archeology: the study of versions of the past along with what is taken to be facts.
Abalos' anarco-archeology seems to be closer to the third - although the third always relates to the first two somehow. An-archeology is about not rushing to throw away versions in the name of a unified history of facts. It is about excavating with care - digging holes could be a quick path to epistemicides. Related to that is an-arche-ology which is about not assuming an origin, a common starting point that could serve as a foundation. It is excavating to eventually find the odd, the unfitted, the challenge - something akin to what Ben Woodard calls xenoarcheology, excavating for the alien. Rather, take the surprising and the non-archaic as a what lies underground. An-arche-ology is also excavating for more simulacra, for there is no original, no prototype. It points at a non-ending excavation. There is underground as long as there is a floor.

Anarcheology - and anarco-archeology - is about excavating. I also understand that there could be incavating, something I called (in a piece of paper left in a bottle at Lascaux) inarcheologies. There, it is a matter of creating the past - of bringing up active imagination to implant something on the earth. Just as we do when we grow vegetables by implanting them, affecting the past as it is registered on the floor is to change is operational system. Inarcheology is something we do, in different degrees of intensity, on a regular basis.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is nev...
1 comment
Read more

The underground of concepts: my talk at the Marxism and the Pittsburgh School Conference

In few minutes I'll be presenting this talk in the Marxism and the Pittsburgh School conference in the UCL. I can still change the text but this is how it looks like now. The underground of concepts: McDowell on the productivity of Anschauungen Hilan Bensusan 1. Jean-François Lyotard diagnosed the idea that concepts do the productive work of thinking as a deception. It is not through a dynamics of concepts that conclusions are reached and it is not with the decisive intervention of them that conflicts between alternatives resolved. Lyotard compares the pretense that concepts think with the mystification that capital works. He argues that “what works is not the concept, […] the concept is [like] capital which pretends to work, but which [only] determines the conditions of labour, delimits the outsides and insides, the authorized and the prohibited” (Lyotard, Libidinal Economy, p. 13). This diagnosis, frequently lost in the middle of an ampler argumentation around t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Talk on ultrametaphysics

 This is the text of my seminar on ultrametaphysics on Friday here in Albuquerque. An attempt at a history of ultrametaphysics in five chapters Hilan Bensusan I begin with some of the words in the title. First, ‘ultrametaphysics’, then ‘history’ and ‘chapters’. ‘Ultrametaphysics’, which I discovered that in my mouth could sound like ‘ autre metaphysics’, intends to address what comes after metaphysics assuming that metaphysics is an endeavor – or an epoch, or a project, or an activity – that reaches an end, perhaps because it is consolidated, perhaps because it has reached its own limits, perhaps because it is accomplished, perhaps because it is misconceived. In this sense, other names could apply, first of all, ‘meta-metaphysics’ – that alludes to metaphysics coming after physics, the books of Aristotle that came after Physics , or the task that follows the attention to φύσις, or still what can be reached only if the nature of things is considered. ‘Me...
Post a Comment
Read more