Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:28:36.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The future of archaeological theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2015

Julian Thomas
Julian Thomas*
Affiliation:
School of Arts, Languages and Cultures, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK (Email: julian.thomas@manchester.ac.uk)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this latest contribution to our ‘Archaeological Futures’ series, Julian Thomas reflects on the current state of Western archaeological theory and how it is probably going to develop over the next few years. Archaeological theory has not ossified in the period since the processual/post-processual exchanges. The closer integration of archaeological thought with philosophical debate in the human sciences has gradually given rise to a theoretical landscape that would have been unrecognisable 30 years ago, wherein ‘new materialisms’ figure significantly.

Type
Research
Information
Antiquity , Volume 89 , Issue 348 , December 2015 , pp. 1287 - 1296
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alberti, B. 2013. Archaeology and ontologies of scale, in Alberti, B., Jones, A.M. & Pollard, J. (ed.) Archaeology after interpretation: 43–58. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast.Google Scholar
Alberti, B., Fowles, S., Holbraad, M., Marshall, Y. & Witmore, C.L.. 2011. ‘Worlds otherwise’: archaeology, anthropology, and ontological difference. Current Anthropology 52: 896–912. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/662027 Google Scholar
Barad, K. 2011. Nature's queer performativity. Qui Parle 19: 121–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.5250/quiparle.19.2.0121 Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C. 2014. The material constitution of humanness. Archaeological Dialogues 21: 65–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1380203814000105 Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 2010. Vibrant matter. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Berry, D.M. 2012. The uses of object-oriented ontology. Available at: http://stunlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/uses-of-object-oriented-ontology.html (accessed 1 October 2015).Google Scholar
Bintliff, J.L. 2011. The death of archaeological theory?, in Bintliff, J.L. & Pearce, M. (ed.) The death of archaeological theory?: 7–22. Oxford: Oxbow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogost, I. 2012. Alien phenomenology. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816678976.003.0001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braver, L. 2007. A thing of this world: a history of continental anti-realism. Evanston: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Braver, L. 2014. Heidegger. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Coole, D. & Frost, S.. 2010. Introducing the new materialisms, in Coole, D. & Frost, S. (ed.) New materialisms: 1–46. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.Google Scholar
DeLanda, M. 2006. A new philosophy of society. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Domanska, E. 2006. The return to things. Archaeologia Polona 44: 171–85.Google Scholar
Fowler, C. 2013a. Dynamic assemblages, or the past is what endures, in Alberti, B., Jones, A.M. & Pollard, J. (ed.) Archaeology after interpretation: 235–56. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast.Google Scholar
Fowler, C. 2013b. The emergent past. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, C. & Harris, O.. 2015. Enduring relations: a paradox of new materialism. Journal of Material Culture 20: 127–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359183515577176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosden, C. 2005. What do objects want? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12: 193–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10816-005-6928-x Google Scholar
Gratton, P. 2014. Speculative realism. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 2009. Prince of networks: Bruno Latour and metaphysics. Melbourne: Re.press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2014.0007 Google Scholar
Harman, G. 2010. Towards speculative realism. Winchester: Zero Books.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 2014. Entanglement and relation. New Literary History 45: 37–49.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 1971. The thing. Poetry, language, thought: 163–86. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 1977. The age of the world-picture. The question concerning technology and other essays: 115–54. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Henare, A., Holbraad, M. & Wastell, S.. 2007. Thinking through things, in Henare, A., Holbraad, M. & Wastell, S. (ed.) Thinking through things. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. 1982. Theoretical archaeology: a reactionary view, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Symbolic and structural archaeology: 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 2012. Entangled. Oxford: John Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T. 2012. Toward an ecology of materials. Annual Reviews of Anthropology 41: 427–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145920 Google Scholar
Jones, A.M. 2012. Prehistoric materialities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199556427.001.0001 Google Scholar
Jones, A.M. & Alberti, B.. 2013. Archaeology after interpretation, in Alberti, B., Jones, A.M. & Pollard, J. (ed.) Archaeology after interpretation: 15–35. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast.Google Scholar
Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, G. 2012. Understanding the archaeological record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meillassoux, Q. 2008. After finitude. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Miller, D. 1987. Material culture and mass consumption. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Niemoczynski, L. 2013. 21st century speculative philosophy. Cosmos and History 9: 13–31.Google Scholar
Olsen, B. 2012. After interpretation: remembering archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology 20: 11–34.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., Shanks, M., Webmoor, T. & Witmore, C.. 2012. Archaeology: the discipline of things. Berkeley: University of California Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520274167.001.0001 Google Scholar
Overton, N. & Hamilakis, Y.. 2013. A manifesto for a social zooarchaeology. Archaeological Dialogues 20: 111–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1380203813000159 Google Scholar
Protevi, J. 2012. Deleuze and life, in Smith, D.W. & Somers-Hall, H. (ed.) The Cambridge companion to Deleuze: 239–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CCO9780511753657.012 Google Scholar
Rae, G. 2013. Heidegger's influence on post-humanism. History of the Human Sciences 26: 1–19.Google Scholar
Robb, J. 2013. Material culture, landscapes of action, and emergent causation. Current Anthropology 54: 657–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/673859 Google Scholar
Shaviro, S. 2014. The universe of things. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816689248.001.0001 Google Scholar
Sørenson, T.F. 2013. We have never been Latourian: archaeological ethics and the post-human condition. Norwegian Archaeological Review 46: 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2013.779317 Google Scholar
Thomas, J.S. 2015. What do we mean by ‘Neolithic societies’?, in Fowler, C., Harding, J. & Hofman, D. (ed.) The Oxford handbook of Neolithic Europe: 1073–92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Webmoor, T. 2007. What about ‘one more turn after the social’ in archaeological reasoning? Taking things seriously. World Archaeology 39: 563–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438240701679619 Google Scholar
Witmore, C.L. 2007. Symmetrical archaeology: excerpts of a manifesto. World Archaeology 39: 546–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438240701679411 Google Scholar
Wolfendale, P. 2014. Object-oriented philosophy. Falmouth: Urbanomic Media.Google Scholar