Introduction

Abstract

Violent encounters move quickly. They explode and then weave their tentacles, as Veena Das (2007, 1) once put it, into the recesses of everyday life, amplifying the slower-paced systemic violences that already structure life in inequitable societies. Distinct acts of violence build over time. They become compound events that can eventually characterize major experiential aspects of entire generations. This compound, multidimensional violence characterizes the discipline of archaeology, just as it also exists within broader society. Because violence operates at so many different scales, pulses, and distributions, it can be difficult to identify it and parse its causes and consequences. What we choose to name as violence depends on who is doing the naming and what is socio-politically possible to name from the moment in which we are situated. Thus, while we deal with explicit, physical forms of violence, we also attend to the structural and epistemic violences that manifest themselves through the discipline's entanglements with imperialism and claims of epistemic superiority, as well as the ramifications of its entrenched whiteness. We ask: How might anthropologists reckon with the social and material realities of violent pasts and their enduring presence? What can archaeologists, specifically, contribute to this reckoning process? So much has transpired since January 2020, when many of the authors featured in this special section came together to present the early seeds of these articles. Our session, titled “Reckoning with Violence,” was held at the annual conference of the Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA), where, despite being the last programmed session, we found ourselves standing before a packed room. We realized then that we weren't the only ones longing for more-substantial ways of grappling with violence in and through archaeology. Although we thought the session timely, we certainly did not predict 2020 would bring into such stark relief the myriad forms of violence our discipline and the media had long posed as at best related but distinct, or at worst entirely disparate. The co-occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic and a string of highly visible killings of Black people at the hands of the police and vigilantes in the United States highlighted the need to address entrenched racism and deep-seated economic inequalities here and across the globe. At the same time, there was a startling spike in anti-Asian violence, as people began to place undue blame for the pandemic on China (Coloma et al., 2021). As the pandemic wreaked havoc on the world, people seemed suddenly to have sufficient time to notice the disturbing state of racialized violence specifically (d'Alpoim Guedes, Gonzalez, and Rivera-Collazo, 2021; Buchanan, Bui, and Patel, 2020). And they reacted furiously. As the world watched, protestors toppled and transformed long-protected racist and colonialist public monuments (Fryer et al., 2021). They demanded changes to buildings and foundations named for known slavers, racists, and abusers. They called for reparations. These global uprisings were, as Jeannette Plummer Sires (2021, 957) put it, “born out of the deepest grief, rage, and desolation.” The media gave these “twin pandemics”—COVID-19 and unbridled racism—unprecedented coverage, often echoing activists’ calls for “racial reckoning” (see Franklin et al., 2020, 756–58; Thiaw, 2020). Our heritage institutions, professional societies, and academic departments were not impervious to the tumult of 2020. Many have since started to process what calls for racial reckoning might really mean for them. Granted, a marginal group within the discipline has been taking the field to task for decades about the need for such a reckoning (e.g., Colwell, 2007; LaRoche and Blakey, 1997). But the confluence of these “twin pandemics” seems to have made a great deal more people receptive to genuine self-reflection and substantive change for the first time. For instance, the editors of the journals and publications of the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) released a statement in July 2020 publicly acknowledging representational shortcomings of the SAA's publications and noting that they “must actively take on the commitment to anti-racist and anti-colonialist structural change as individuals and as an organization” (Gamble et al., 2020). Such statements are welcome and have the potential to open the space for reckoning. But it seems a tall order to go from an organization whose membership dedicates almost no time to discussions of race and racism (Park, Wang, and Marwick, 2022; see also Curtoni and Politis, 2006; Gosden, 2006) to one prepared to raise the mantle of antiracism. We must be careful that the kinds of solutions proposed for enacting change don't simply traffic in “gestures of inclusion and parenthetical citation over the reorganization of anthropological practice” while the harm continues (Jobson, 2020, 267). If gestures are all we gain, then it's not so difficult to understand why some might be in favor of letting archaeology burn (sensu Jobson, 2020). Still, we have been offered a rare opportunity for reinvention (Dedrick, McAnany, and Batún Alpuche, this section). As reckoning remains a topic of frequent reference, we seek to situate what it means for the field of archaeology. Opting to reckon with historical and persistent violence in archaeology is not easy. It takes enormous emotional and intellectual energy. And because the problem is too often cast as one for individuals to solve (rather than institutions), the time required can seem especially daunting. Likewise, many who desire to pursue this kind of work harbor fears of alienating colleagues in the journey to root out problematic practices and name what often goes unsaid. Each of these concerns can conflict with the demands of academia and industry alike. Yet, for reinvention to occur, we must organize to creatively grapple with the implications and intentions of our collective work (e.g., Black Trowel Collective, 2016; Carlson, 2017; Franklin et al., 2020; Fryer, this section; Saitta, 2007; Society of Black Archaeologists, 2020). Reckoning does not promise resolution. Rather, it begins the process of exposing damages and coming to terms with wrongs. How we choose to do so today may be considered misguided or unsatisfactory in a generation or two. Nonetheless, reckoning is a necessary first step to opening up possibilities for justice, repair, and well-being. We've crafted this special section with the fervent conviction that archaeologists and heritage practitioners, whether academically situated or in professional industries, could be doing a lot more to support efforts at reckoning with violence as both an operative force in the past/present and in the epistemological orientations of our disciplines writ large. In this introduction, we speak at length about archaeology's shortcomings not to condemn it but rather to suggest avenues toward repair. However, we do not advocate repairing archaeology for archaeology's sake. Enough ink has been spilled over why archaeology matters or what makes archaeology relevant (see Stahl, 2020)—at times to a point of violent defensiveness (see, for example, Heath-Stout, 2019, 217–19). Our concern, though, is how archaeology and related heritage practices can be put to work effectively supporting things that matter beyond the small circles of our disciplines. We don't believe we can wholeheartedly contribute to societal reckoning projects (as many of the contributors herein do) without also grappling with the forms of violence endemic to our profession. We humbly acknowledge, however, that the questions we ask herein (and solutions we propose) come on the coattails of several decades of scholarship consistently aimed at figuring out the socio-political role of archaeology (e.g., Gero, Lacey, and Blakey, 1983) and how it might contribute to alleviating broader societal ailments, such as inequality, racism, and injustice (e.g., et al., 2021; et al., and and 2007; 2020; and 2007; 2020; et al., et al., 2020; et al., 2020; and Still, has become these last it's that a lot remains to be and in archaeology have the in to the heritage practices have long (see, for The of projects taking these as their 2016; is what might be the in the field since the (e.g., and 2020; and 2016; and and 2020; et al., 2022; and 2020; Gonzalez, 2016; and and 2016; 2022; and 2020). projects and projects whose on repairing and the epistemic violence our often of our to of the while and and 2020). and are an of the of work that with their Historical in of the of the which archaeology's potential as a for in heritage in violence also seem to be the discipline writ to take of its (e.g., 2020; and to in and 2020). archaeology's It can a of from practitioners, and often their to and such as of the et al., how space for emotional entanglements with and on the process and its can archaeology and to the the discipline and the it is to that we our to and of violence that our to reckon a to the forms of violence we in the material the ways is or the ways it is to and our What might be considered the visible seeds of a reckoning in archaeology are the changes to how archaeologists and as well as the ways such as are is on the and to the in the United States that would become the American and and 2017; As it 2020 the of was a that the of and the of and Colwell, 2020, without being for or in an rather was a kind of in which the of would be 2019, As the only of its has also had global to for and 2020; and and for whose have long been the of anthropological the (and continues to some archaeologists and physical anthropologists to on their to their to remains (see in and Colwell, 2020). the implications of the have no on their of as the United on the of (see et al., 2017; et al., 2020). some archaeologists have been the for the of the of and the of there has been a in the kinds of as for et al., 2021; 2020; and this has been and the journey to for in the United States is from 2020; Colwell, it is that racialized have violence as in the United States and et al., 2020; and Colwell, 2021; and 2007; 2020; 2020; 2006; of time and emotional energy. put it in many of the that violence be into the public it to on what has been as a of our entrenched practices and epistemological For instance, the of the at the it was to the the of Black 2021). At the same time, it came to that the remains of in the police of the organization compound in in were in the of who had been to the in them. their were it's the remains to and than the in a so they could be to with their the in the and then in a to the of the In the decades that the as in their without for the of in was held on the and of people 2022; 2021). The and of remains in and archaeology is not simply a of our we may have ourselves exists our practices today and of our when we the the of of Black in a public our discipline continues to Our practices are one of the reckoning with As because has an are often to and the been situated at the of The and of from both the of and the they from their the of a of and made and of the of a with to the in not just the of this with that a reckoning. the that the practices an of that at the of already in life and in the from a as well as of racism, and it's not only violence but the violence myriad that many of these in the or in the of a are the of the forms of violence not only in but in the and of they no be in the same that or of may be to be are and the to be about of made as archaeologists, can become to the of avenues of the of violence (see this section). In this and in and of for can open the space for the and and can harm all too often without this section; and this section). we to in these What does reckoning mean for archaeologists and heritage have the historical archaeology, and (e.g., and and 2020; Archaeology remains in through its of as of the for and 2020, 2022; through its practices through its of colonialist projects and and through of to field they in the name of see These whether or are as a within which archaeology has been or 2020). In violence is our In its violence become the held in or though, not be or but rather as that which is in and also to be and The uprisings of the last were a collective of that acknowledging our and is reckoning with violence in archaeology also means the that or in the social violence that is the of as and as (see and 2020). that in the United and the United of the of remains an 2020, and 2021; and 2020). This means the of the archaeologists about are from the of of this who also to this special are there so Black to ask: are there so many that in order to with of and in the these archaeologists need to be more questions about what their as means for the field (see also Carlson, 2017; from who for in archaeology, that and in our field to the and that we all archaeologists, but especially in to from our in of more et and for that might be to and as a step to our the discipline writ (see also If is a on the of and then archaeologists within in with physical have how the field the of the and its remains and 2020; Colwell, to with and while the of for our no that archaeology has been and as a space 2021; and 2020). For example, that over a of work at the has been to the and of of while to a that and in the to with what the be to people racism and economic is the and which can the of archaeologists the to understand how the of their can be in the present or have implications for the of the who may have to the they This is or to or which some to or of the ways in which or of the can be to and We raise the of because we that archaeology (and its related can be toward 2006; and et al., 2021; et al., 2022; for the field have since the and remains a As in address to the American anthropologists and do not simply as to but when we do not that race and matter to the work that we do and that our in a can be a an of we what could be and see also Fryer, 2020). for the be to a when continues to to (see 2020). as when we have to the of racist public of the we have come to may take to with that we first be about the ways that violence the McAnany, and Batún this problem when they the of the while the foundations of what would become one of the of archaeology, was also and colonialist Although certainly some reckoning in their McAnany, and Batún that it's the of and that have made a on the from as well as the and of physical to claims about in toward and imperialism in alienating from their and the of as and and misguided and anthropological of and for Yet, is considered a point to the These colonialist do not in the they work to or and a in a which how in are a of and that not as such our of the and have in forms of epistemic violence toward the of on that are themselves from (see also 2021; and The of these to only matters so much when the is our in of injustice and The is that much of the racism global is through (e.g., archaeologists who Black or pasts without Black or or intentions (e.g., who desire to solve related to through that be to we are at as and it be taking the necessary to racism (and its and a The that too is not simply as a but rather as a in racial and its is because it through both racist and that it possible for the (e.g., that the of in the United had to because of the social of the Because of the and of in racial may not be a only to 2020 or Black can be they are not to in substantive change in the of an to and kind of change we reckon with our while space for and with a of intellectual and It we time to the potential of our and and in without the toward this is not the of of the we it's to also address the that the of archaeology as it is in its to and has not only racism but also a on and that continues to people out of the field (d'Alpoim Guedes, Gonzalez, and Rivera-Collazo, and 2020; 2020; These violences have been for too If an to the kind of it to archaeology, it is not because we do not the to and we could themselves and we it as a have themselves of and the and of The discipline has a long of in violent events or violent and the of conflict archaeology continues to However, the contributors herein are more in as a social force in and and what avenues there might be for alleviating violence as the is a for archaeologists and 2020). In an to the and of violence, we need to to racism, inequality, or but we there is in ourselves that are Thus, we terms from the of violence, which more in its of this special section notice that the contributors all within the of or archaeology. This the that it is difficult for archaeologists of more times to or of violence that material many certainly through their or through an a commitment to a and as however, is an that archaeologists of the would be to the work of reckoning does not to and 2020). archaeologists who violence they are situated within the discipline writ have had the of doing so without being or to reckon with archaeologists do violence, we to do so in a or acts of violence as of entire societies. These and representational the of that violence to of What of violence not be are and in and that a violence 2020, The authors of this special section have been the to and their physical to the of violence (see also 2020, In their the contributors that to violence in the and present is to not only with the acts that it but with the and that The of they be of or of our as a on more as in the of violence at all of the field and and our professional et al., As in this special we see reckoning as the first order of when it to taking the violence in and of archaeology to we mean up to our and as well as to the violence and the and we reckoning a desire for and first naming and with the and violences and this we to Our contributors also how it is to or professional with violence and the individuals or to with and Reckoning that the people and that to be in violent or their in that and seek ways to for reckoning is not an it takes individuals to see reckoning For archaeologists, this means in this of forms of this section). We see reckoning as a to and might to pursue avenues of as of and this section; or of this the violence become we a when we might in the of an archaeology because have the field rather than in of the violence our discipline continues to it is to bring the violence into the we also don't to see also this that cast a to the violence it has as of its or we can reckon in ways that to the and of and while practices that the of reckoning to But the field and toward can be especially in the of the Reckoning into the especially people who have the to it or for This across different of institutions, such as and In to this special that for a of heritage terms heritage as The proposed heritage that often work societal and to address the archaeologists to take up substantive in with collective and makes a of the is it that we have at our and have not put to in projects of reckoning to and to the of the which was to and the of racial in the of the reckoning may be so difficult is that people are not often called to the violence that in the of our heritage work and to do just the physical and themselves and who and from the of racialized of the but rather the of violence and its and reckoning are as it, a in which we with our in of and that violence, while ourselves to with and of violence, and to the of individuals in the structural of repair, and In an American in contributors to this and proposed that makes for to violent and structural In their to this and point They to who is to the violences of both and with that the authors found themselves standing to the of the of Black on the one and the of into stark on the of the of these a they violence to the of being in this space as through their with that violence the of and They of violence with of such as and that a desire for and to from and the authors to pasts and life, while reckon with violence and seek to that which they have The authors seek to move their with through about heritage that this violence and foundations for repair. the possibilities of in people are to and avenues for reckoning with through a that within a The in from the while at the then held in the of and not to about Yet, found structural and violence in the about their that to The to the through were as of been from their place of and to an anthropological in a that violence from their to reckon with violence as a and the of repair, in of in the of and their of the their and social in the of structural As reckoning a and to on the of people and who have and though, the of and not so and on the in this such with to the of violence at in which of The first in the and to to a that of The the role of and in and the violences of as they are both the of the and the of on whose the was The point to the and and their in of the of as a for the United or difficult such as within American can emotional to violent of and The of these within and can of coming to terms with in ways may the when made to the of the of to the of or state violence and for reckoning But the herein only the of what reckoning in and through archaeology might They that we more to how archaeology might contribute to as we have already they are a not an This is a moment to be this and to both and structural forms of violence in our societies. do it We may not be the best to do this But we do what we As (2021, put it, the events of the are we have how to build a is work for all of It is that archaeology remains the violence it has or But we believe that it's possible to archaeology from and a for in 2020, to out to a for for organization in of the of at the As in to this the are in their but the and of their We take our from then when we to a as how the work of reckoning with violence might with and be and see and with a and for to and for their to this and their We also for as the for the session and for our work so in its also to and for their on this introduction, as well as to the for their in not only this but the section in its