ABSTRACT
How much emphasis, if any, should archaeologists place on the role of Europe(ans) in world history, especially as it pertains to the past five centuries? The resolution of this contentious query has become more pressing during the past two decades as growing numbers of archaeologists have acknowledged that Indigenous voices matter (see Gnecco, Haber, Verdesio this volume). Many archaeologists have answered the question by arguing against any interpretation that foregrounds Europe(ans) in shaping ‘modern’ history. Some have used their disdain of European history to eschew the idea of modernity’s very existence. Faced with the widespread ideology of the ‘European miracle’, they counter that giving Europe a prominent role in the history of the past five centuries is misguided at best and racist at worst. A significant element of their argument has focused on the artificial division of the human lifespan into two gross divisions: ‘history’ and ‘prehistory’. Dissenting archaeologists affirm that this artificial split encourages us to imagine ‘history’ as civilization and ‘prehistory’ as savagery.
