Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:11:52.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaeology is process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2018

Oliver Harris
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Assaf Nativ has written an interesting and, I think, important paper. It raises critical issues around the ontological status of ‘the archaeological’ and indeed about the purpose and aims of archaeology as a discipline. These are clearly topics that require consideration and critical analysis. His arguments are provocative, in the best sense, in that they will lead us to reflect on some of the basic foundations of what we believe archaeology to be. Such consideration is certainly necessary to disciplinary health. That said, and after some hefty reflection of my own, I have concluded that I disagree with much of the paper's argument. In the space afforded to me I aim to set out why.

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , June 2018 , pp. 34 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Barrett, J.C., 2001: Agency, the duality of structure, and the problem of the archaeological record, in Hodder, I. (ed.), Archaeological theory today, Cambridge, 141–64.Google Scholar
Bayliss, A., Cartwright, C., Cook, G., Griffiths, S., Madgwock, R., Marsall, P. and Reimer, P., 2017: Rings of fire and Grooved Ware settlement at West Kennet, Wiltshire, in Bickle, P., Cummings, V., Hofmann, D. and Pollard, J. (eds), Neolithic Europe. Papers in honour of Alasdair Whittle, Oxford, 249–77.Google Scholar
Cobb, H., Harris, O.J.T., Jones, C. and Richardson, P., 2012: Reconsidering fieldwork, an introduction. Confronting tensions in fieldwork and theory, in Cobb, H., Harris, O.J.T., Jones, C. and Richardson, P. (eds), Reconsidering archaeological fieldwork. Exploring on-site relationships between theory and practice, New York, 1–14.Google Scholar
Conneller, C., 2011: An archaeology of materials. Substantial transformations in early prehistoric Europe, London.Google Scholar
Crellin, R.J., 2017: Changing assemblages. Vibrant matter in burial assemblages, Cambridge archaeological journal 27, 111–25.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G., 1988: Spinoza. Practical philosophy, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G., 2006: The fold. Leibniz and the baroque, London.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F., 2004: A thousand plateaus. Capitalism and schizophrenia, London.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, M., 2012: Follow the cut, follow the rhythm, follow the material. Norwegian archaeological review 45, 76–92.Google Scholar
Fowler, C., 2013a: Dynamic assemblages, or the past is what endures, in Alberti, B., Jones, A.M. and Pollard, J. (eds), Archaeology after interpretation. Returning materials to archaeological theory, Walnut Creek, 235–56.Google Scholar
Fowler, C., 2013b: The emergent past. A relational realist archaeology of Early Bronze Age mortuary practices, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, C., and Harris, O.J., 2015: Enduring relations. Exploring a paradox of new materialism, Journal of material culture 20 (2), 127–48.Google Scholar
Gosden, C., and Malafouris, L., 2015: Process archaeology (p-arch), World archaeology 47, 701–17.Google Scholar
Hamilakis, Y., 2016: Archaeologies of forced and undocumented migration, Journal of contemporary archaeology 3, 121–39.Google Scholar
Harman, G., 2011: The quadruple object, Winchester.Google Scholar
Harris, O.J.T. 2014. (Re)assembling communities, Journal of archaeological method and theory 21, 76–97.Google Scholar
Harris, O.J.T., and Cipolla, C.N., 2017: Archaeological theory in the new millennium. Introducing current perspectives, London.Google Scholar
Henare, A., Holbraad, M. and Wastell, S., 2007a: Introduction. Thinking through things, in Henare, A., Holbraad, M. and Wastell, S. (eds), Thinking through things. Theorising artefacts ethnographically, London, 1–31.Google Scholar
Jones, A.M., 2012: Prehistoric materialities. Becoming material in prehistoric Britain and Ireland, Oxford.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., 2012: After interpretation. Remembering archaeology, Current Swedish archaeology 20, 11–34.Google Scholar
Robb, J.E., and Pauketat, T.R., 2013: From moments to millennia. Theorizing scale and change in human history, in Robb, J.E. and Pauketat, T.R. (eds), Big histories, human lives. Tackling the problem of scale in archaeology, Sante Fe, 3–33.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C., 1987: Re-constructing archaeology, London.Google Scholar
Witmore, C., 2014: Archaeology and the new materialisms, Journal of contemporary archaeology 1 (2), 203–46.Google Scholar
Yarrow, T., 2003: Artefactual persons. The relational capacities of persons and things in the practice of excavation, Norwegian archaeological review 36, 65–73.Google Scholar