ALIENATING MARKET ARCHAEOLOGY: TENDENCIES AND REFLECTIONS OF DE-FORMING IN GLOBALIZING ARCHAEOLOGY

Öz

In this paper, we discuss an issue that pushes the boundaries of disciplinary archaeology’s fundamental colonial and archaeological ethics. For this reason, the title of the study is The Archaeology of the Alienating Market, which we interpret as trends of de-forming. Our aim in this study is to examine the dimensions and relationship of non-disciplinary de-forming with global archaeology. The main method of our study is the interpretation of the findings. The constructed Western argument for official archaeology, which tends to fetishize the archaeological record, has created a more complex situation between archaeology and a range of market concerns that has given rise to a number of indigenous movements. As the 19th century development discourse entered a young discipline, the negative effects of the advance of capitalism were subjected to many political and commercial manipulations. During this period, the current state of popular archaeological representation presented a model of representation that was clearly at odds with the way archaeology was presented to public communities. The asymmetrical relationship between disciplinary knowledge in archaeology and local knowledge of past times, the interest in practices related to the materiality of the past in the present, has found its place in the market as “de-forming”. These tendencies, which have become central to archaeological practice in the marketplace, have led to a reconfiguration of the epistemological and ontological assumptions of the archaeological discipline. The emergence of doctrines of development of the production of archaeological knowledge, contingently embedded in different historical and political processes, has been accompanied by the emergence of different fields in their consequences. The industry of economic development through for-profit ventures is exemplified by the role of archaeology in the production of film, literature, tourism resources. Archaeological interdisciplinary reconstructions of past lives have been transformed into centers of attraction for a growing public ready to consume these new products. In light of all this, it can be argued that aesthetics and monumentality go hand in hand with global capitalism in the renewed rise of commercial values that place archaeological practice in a historical context that explicitly draws on, but does not require, a scientific narrative for successful commercialization.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Market Archaeology
• Archaeological Fiction
• Alienating Archaeology
• Western Paradigm
• Globalization.

UZAYLILAŞAN PİYASA ARKEOLOJİSİ: KÜRESELLEŞEN ARKEOLOJİDE FORM DIŞILAŞMA EĞİLİMLERİ VE YANSIMALARI

Öz

Bu çalışmada disipliner arkeolojinin temel sömürgeci ve arkeolojik etiğin sınırlarını zorlayan bir konu tartışmaya açılmıştır. Bu nedenle çalışmanın başlığı form dışılaşma eğilimleri olarak yorumladığımız Uzaylılaşan Piyasa Arkeolojisi olarak belirlenmiştir. Çalışmadaki amacımız disipliner olmayan form dışılaşmanın küresel arkeoloji ile olan boyutlarını ve ilişkisini irdelemektir. Çalışmamızın ana metodunu ise mevcut bulguların yorumlanması oluşturmaktadır. Arkeolojik kayıtları fetişleştirme eğiliminde olan inşa edilmiş Batılı resmi arkeoloji argümanı, arkeoloji ile bir dizi piyasa kaygısı arasında bir takım yerli hareketin ortaya çıkışını sağlayan, daha karmaşık bir durum yaratmıştır. 19. yüzyıl kalkınma söylemi genç bir disipline girerken kapitalizmin ilerlemesinin olumsuz etkileri politik ve ticari birçok manipülasyona maruz kalmıştır. Bu süreçte popüler arkeolojik temsilin mevcut durumu, arkeolojinin kamusal topluluklara sunulma şekliyle açıkça çelişen bir temsil modeli sunmaktaydı. Arkeolojideki disipliner bilgi ile geçmiş zamanların yerel bilgisi arasındaki asimetrik ilişki, geçmişin şimdiki zamandaki maddiliğiyle ilişkili uygulamalara duyulan ilgi, piyasada yerini “form dışılık” olarak bulmuştur. Piyasada arkeolojik pratiğin merkezine oturan bu eğilimler arkeolojik disiplinin epistemolojik ve ontolojik varsayımlarının tekrar kurgulanmasına yol açmıştır. Arkeolojik bilginin üretiminin, farklı tarihsel ve politik süreçlere olumsal olarak gömülü olan gelişim doktrinlerinin doğuşu, sonuçlarında farklı alanların doğuşuna eşlik etmiştir. Kâr amaçlı girişimler yoluyla oluşturulan ekonomik kalkınma endüstrisi, sinema, edebiyat, turizm kaynaklarının üretiminde arkeolojinin rolü ile örneklenmektedir. Geçmiş yaşamların arkeolojik disiplinler arası yeniden inşaları, bu yeni ürünleri tüketmeye hazır, giderek artan sayıda halk için cazibe merkezlerine dönüştürülmüştür. Sonuçta tüm bunların ışığında estetik ve anıtsallığın, başarılı ticarileşme için bilimsel bir anlatıdan açıkça yararlanan ancak bilimsel bir anlatıyı gerektirmeyen arkeolojik pratiği tarihsel bağlama oturtan, ticari değerlerin yenilenen yükselişinin küresel kapitalizm ile el ele gittiği söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Piyasa Arkeolojisi
• Arkeolojik Kurgu
• Uzaylılaşan Arkeoloji
• Batı Paradigması
• Küreselleşme.

Kaynakça

1. Bahrani, Z. (2010). Conjuring Mesopotamia: Imaginative Geography and a World Past. R. W. Preucel and S. A. Mrozowski (Ed.), Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: The New Pragmatism içinde (s. 887-906). Wiley-Blackwell.
2. Bell, J. A. (1994). Interpretation and testability in theories about prehistoric thinking. C. Renfrew and E. B. W. Zubrow (Ed.), The ancient mind: Elements of cognitive archaeology içinde (s. 15-21), Cambridge University Press.
3. Berlejung, A. (2012). The Assyrians in the west: Assyrianization, colonialism, indifference, or development policy? M. Nissinen (Ed.), Congress volume Helsinki 2010 içinde (s. 21-60), Brill.
4. Binford, L. (1987). Data, relativism and archaeological science. Man 22: 391-404.
5. Boric, D. (2013). Theater of Predation: Beneath the Skin of Göbekli Tepe Images. C. Watts (Ed.), Relational Archaeologies: Humans, animals, things içinde (s. 42-64), London and New York: Routledge.
6. Capelotti, P. J. (2010). The Human Archaeology of Space: Lunar, Planetary and Interstellar Relics of Exploration. McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers.
7. Chu, S. K. W. (2017). 21st Century Skills Development Through Inquiry-Based Learning: From Theory to Practice., Singapore: Springer.
8. Clarke, D. (1968). Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen.

9. Clarke, D. (1973). Archaeology: the loss of innocence. Antiquity 47(185): 6-18.
10. Clifford, J. ve G. E. Marcus. (1986). Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
11. Conkey, M. W. (1982). Boundedness in art and society. I. Hodder (Ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology içinde (s. 115-128), Cambridge University Press.
12. Fahlander, F. ve Oestigaard, T. (2004). Material Culture and Post-disciplinary Sciences. F. Fahlander & T. Oestigaard (Ed.), Material Culture and Other Things Post-disciplinary Studies in the 21st
13. Century içinde (s. 1-19), Vällingby: Printed by Elanders Gotab.
14. Fernandez-Götz, M. (2014). Identity and Power the Transformation of Iron Age Societies in Northeast Gaul. Amsterdam University Press.
15. Funari, P. P. A. ve Carvalho, A. (2014). Global Archaeology. C. Smith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology içinde (s. 3052-3059 ve 4594-4601), New York: Springer.
16. Gelbart, M. (2007). The Invention of “Folk Music” and “Art Music”: Emerging Categories from Ossian to Wagner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Gosden, C. (2004). The Past and Foreign Countries: Colonial and Post-Colonial Archaeology and Anthropology. L. Meskell and R. W. Preucel (Ed.), A Companion to Social Archaeology içinde (s. 161-178), Blackwell Publishing.
18. Haber, A. (2015). Archaeology After Archaeology. A. Haber & N.Shepherd (Ed.), After Ethics Ancestral Voices and Post-Disciplinary Worlds in Archaeology içinde (s. 127-137), Springer.
19. Haber, A. ve Shepherd, N. (2015). After Ethics: Ancestral Voices and Post- disciplinary Worlds in Archaeology: An Introduction. A. Haber & N.Shepherd (Ed.), After Ethics Ancestral Voices and Post-Disciplinary Worlds in Archaeology içinde (s. 1-10), Springer.
20. Herrera, A. (2015). Archaeology and Development: Ethics of a Fateful Relationship. A. Haber & N.Shepherd (Ed.), After Ethics Ancestral Voices and Post-Disciplinary Worlds in Archaeology içinde (s. 39-53), Springer.
21. Hiscock, P. (2014). Film, Archaeology in. C. Smith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology içinde (s. 2779-2781), New York: Springer.
22. Hodder, I. (1991). Archaeological Theory in Europe: The Last Three Decades. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
23. Hodder, I. (1992). Theory and Practice in Archaeology. London and New York: Routledge.
24. Hodder, I. (1994). Reading the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Holtorf, C. J. (1998). Knowing without Metaphysics and Pretension. A Radical Constructivist Proposal. Andersson, A-C., Gillberg, A., Jensen, O. W, Karlsson, H. & Rolof, M. V. (Ed.). The Kaleidoscopic Past içinde (s. 91-98). Sweden: Gothenburg University.
26. Johnson, M. (1999). Archaeological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
27. Leach, S. (2015). A Russian perspective on theoretical archaeology: the life and work of Leo S. Klejn. Walnut Creek. Left coast press.
28. Lincoln, D. (2013). Alien Universe: Extraterrestrial Life in our Minds and in the Cosmos. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
29. Lucas, G. (2019). Writing the Past: Knowledge and Literary Production in Archaeology. London and New York: Routledge.
30. Maran, J. (2012). One world is not enough: the transformative potential of intercultural exchange in prehistoric societies. P. W. Stockhammer (Ed.), Conceptualizing cultural hybridization: a transdisciplinary approach içinde (s. 59-66), Springer.
31. Meskell, L. (2020). Imperialism, Internationalism, and Archaeology in the Un/Making of the Middle East, American Anthropologist, Vol. 000, No. 0, 1-14.
32. Mickel, A. (2013). Excavation, Narration, and the Wild Man: Montage and Linearity in Representing Archaeology, Anthropology & Humanism 38(2): 177–186.
33. Mickel, A. (2014). Authenticity in Archaeological Writing and Representation. C. Smith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology içinde (s. 724-728), New York: Springer.
34. O’brien, M. J. (1996). The Historical Development of an Evolutionary Archaeology: A Selectionist Approach. H. D. G. Maschner (Ed.), Darwinian Archaeologies içinde (s. 17-32), New York: Springer.
35. O’Keeffe, T. (2014). Heritage and Archaeology. C. Smith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology içinde (s. 3258-3268), New York: Springer.
36. O’Leary, B. L. (2015). To Boldly Go Where No Man [sic] Has Gone Before:” Approaches in Space Archaeology and Heritage. B. L. O’Leary - P.J. Capelotti (Ed.), Archaeology and Heritage of the Human Movement into Space içinde (s. 1-12), Switzerland: Springer.
37. Orser, C. E. (1996). Historical Archaeology. London and New York: Routledge.
38. Preucel, R. W. (2006). Archaeological Semiotics. Blackwell Publishing.
39. Renfrew, A. C. ve Bahn, P. (1994). Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. London: Tames and Hudson.
40. Schiffer, M. B. (2013). The Archaeology of Science: Studying the Creation of Useful Knowledge. Switzerland: Springer.
41. Shanks, M. (1992). Experiencing the Past: On the Character of Archaeology. London and New York: Routledge.
42. Shanks, M. ve Tilley, C. (1992). Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
43. Skibo, J. M. (2013). Understanding Pottery Function. New York: Springer.
44. Stone, P. G. ve Planel, P. G. (1999). The Constructed Past: Experimental archaeology, education and the public. London and New York: Routledge.
45. Talalay, L. E. (2010). The Past as Commodity Archaeological Images in Modern Advertising. W. Preucel and S. A. Mrozowski (Ed.), Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: The New Pragmatism içinde (s. 1088-1108). Wiley-Blackwell.
46. Trigger, B. (1994). A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47. Verhagen, P. (2018). Spatial Analysis in Archaeology: Moving into New Territories. C. Siart, M. Forbriger, O. Bubenzer (Ed.), Digital Geoarchaeology: New Techniques for Interdisciplinary Human- Environmental Research içinde (s. 11-25), Switzerland: Springer.
48. Vermeer, H. J. (2008). Çeviride Skopos kuramı. (Çev. A. H. Konar), İş bankası kültür yayınları.
49. Watts, C. ve Knappett, C. (2023). Ancient Art Revisited: Global Perspectives from Archaeology and Art History. C. Watts and C. Knappett (Ed.), Ancient Art Revisited Global Perspectives from Archaeology and Art History içinde (s. 1-17), London and New York: Routledge.
50. Wheatley, D. ve Gillings, M. (2002). Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The archaeological applications of GIS. London and New York: Taylor & Francis.
51. White, H. (1987). The content of the form: narrative discourse and historical representation. Johns hopkins university press.
52. Wilkinson, D. (2023). On the Ontological Significance of Naturalistic Art. C. Watts and C. Knappett (Ed.), Ancient Art Revisited: Global Perspectives from Archaeology and Art History içinde (s. 47-66). London and New York: Routledge.
53. Yellen, J. (1977). Cultural Patterning in Faunal Remains: Evidence from the Kung Bushmen. D. Ingersoll, J. Yellen, and W. MacDonald (Ed.), Experimental Archaeology içinde (s. 271-331), New York: Columbia University Press.