Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:11:05.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The liquidation of material things

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Susanne Küchler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Thomas' paper and manuscript are ambitious. He aims at nothing less than opening up for discussion fundamental concepts which have informed archaeological writings to date. While in principal laudable and exciting, the chosen concepts – time, culture and identity – are broad, each one on its own of daunting complexity. The vastness of the project is handled by setting up an opposition at the outset between the Cartesian and modernist reading of these concepts adopted by archaeology and an anti-Cartesian and anti-modernist reading facilitated by Heidegger. At issue is less the validity of Heidegger's writings or their deployment in contemporary theory-making, a fact which the author is at pains to defend, though leaving the novice at pains guessing what his writings are actually about; at issue is whether the future of archaeology should rest on developing an anti-Cartesian theory in the first place. The mind/body dualism associated with Descartes has been the subject of much critical work, so much so that it seems at best unnecessary to have to revive Heidegger to give Cartesianism the final blow. One may further question the opposition itself; is it not Kant who is the foundation of post-Enlightenment thought, rather than Descartes, and would thus not his writings be the point of departure for any rethinking of theoretical assumptions that may have guided archaeological theory and practice? A third reservation may be voiced about the validity of the interpretative approach itself; it rests on the assumption, also known as the logocentric paradigm, which holds that a relation exists between an object or image and a narrative description of it which is ‘found’ outside the object and thus may vary according to the context in which the object is seen. The most serious criticism to this assumption is that it ignores the immediacy of understanding which allows images to play a fundamental role in social transmission. Thomas' use of Heidegger's notion of Being appears to strive towards precisely such an immediacy of understanding, yet fails to do so by leaving accounted for the materiality of images. In advocating the interpretative approach, Thomas sets out less a new direction for archaeological theory than captures post-modernist writing which dominated across disciplines for the past decade and left a whole generation of scholars trained during this period ill-equipped to deal with artefacts in more than an exemplary manner. In the late 90s, however, due to advances in cognitive psychology and our day to day experience with cyberspace, this neglect of the image, material and conceptual, and its role in transmission has become glaringly obvious and unacceptable. Critical in their inception, however, paper and manuscript are intently thought provoking, stimulating and timely in calling for a rethinking of archaeological theory to accommodate the contemporary perception of material things. In my discussion I aim to both paraphrase the main points of Thomas's paper and manuscript and to offer comments and questions.

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , May 1996 , pp. 26 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1996

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

Ascher, R., 1961: Analogy in archaeological interpretation, Southwestern journal of anthropology 17, 317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assmann, A., 1991: Zur Metaphorik der Erinnerung, in Assmann, A. and Harth, D. (eds), Mnemosyne. Formen und Funktionen der kulturellen Erinnerung, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Augé, M., 1995: Non-Places. Introduction to an anthropology of super-modernity, London.Google Scholar
Bachelard, G., 1964: The poetics of space, Boston.Google Scholar
Bailey, G., 1981: Concepts, time-scales and explanations in economic prehistory, in Sheridan, A. and Bailey, G. (eds), Economic archaeology, Oxford, 97–118.Google Scholar
Bailey, G., 1983: Concepts of time in Quaternary prehistory, Annual review of anthropology 12, 165–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 1988: Fields of discourse. Reconstituting a social archaeology, Critique of anthropology 7, 5–16.Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 1994: Fragments from antiquity, Oxford.Google Scholar
Barthes, R., 1981: Theory of the text, in Young, R. (ed.), Untying the text, London, 31–47.Google Scholar
Battaglia, D., 1990: On the bones of the serpent. Person, memory and mortality in Sabarl Island society, Chicago.Google Scholar
Bhabha, H.K., 1994: The location of culture, London.Google Scholar
Buchli, V., 1995: Interpreting material culture. The trouble with text, in Hodder, I., Shanks, M., Alessandri, A., Buchli, V., Carman, J., Last, J. and Lucas, G. (eds), Interpreting archaeology: finding meanings in the past, London, 181–193.Google Scholar
Butler, J., 1993: Bodies that matter, London.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. and Rabinow, P., 1986: Michel Foucault. Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics, Brighton.Google Scholar
Gatens, M., 1992: Power, bodies and difference, in Barrett, M. and Phillips, A. (eds), Destabilizing theory. Contemporary feminist debates, Cambridge, 120–137.Google Scholar
Giddens, A., 1981: A contemporary critique of historical materialism, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosden, C., 1994: Social being and time, Oxford.Google Scholar
Haar, M., 1991: The song of the earth. Heidegger and the grounds of the history of being, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1962: Being and time, Oxford (original German edition Sein und Zeit, 1927; translation by J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson).Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1971: Poetry, language, thought, New York.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 1982: The present past, London.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 1988: Material culture texts and social change. A theoretical discussion and some archaeological examples, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54, 67–76.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 1989: This is not an article about material culture as text, Journal of anthropological archaeology 8, 250–269.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 1990: The domestication of Europe, Oxford.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 1980: Hunters, pastoralists and ranchers, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T., 1983: The architect and the bee. Reflections of the work of animals and men, Man 18, 1–20.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 1984: Time, social relations and the exploitation of animals. Anthropological reflections on prehistory, in Clutton-Brock, J. and Grigson, C. (eds), Animals in archaeology 3. Early herders and their flocks, Oxford, 3–12.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 1986: Evolution and social life, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Jackson, M., 1989: Paths towards a clearing, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Macdonald, R., 1987: The burial-places of memory. Epic underworlds in Virgil, Dante, and Milton, Amherst.Google Scholar
Martin, R., 1988: Truth, power, self. An interview with Michel Foucault, in Martin, L.H., Gutman, H. and Hutton, P.H. (eds), Technologies of the self. A seminar with Michel Foucault, London, 9–15.Google Scholar
Mimica, J., 1993: The Foi and Heidegger. Western philosophical poetics and a New Guinea lifeworld, The Australian journal of anthropology 4, 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrik, L., 1985: Is there an archaeological record?, in Schiffer, M.B. (ed.), Advances in archaeological method and theory 3, London, 27–62.Google Scholar
Piggott, S., 1954: The Neolithic cultures of the British Isles, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Richards, C.C. and Thomas, J.S., 1984: Ritual activity and structured deposition in later Neolithic Wessex, in Bradley, R. and Gardiner, J. (eds), Neolithic studies, Oxford, 189–218.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P., 1988: Time and narrative 3, Chicago.Google Scholar
Rose, G., 1993: Feminism and geography. The limits of geographical knowledge, Oxford.Google Scholar
Sartre, J.-P., 1943: L'être et le néant, Paris.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. and Tilley, C., 1987: Social theory and archaeology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Thomas, J.S., 1991: Rethinking the Neolithic, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Weiner, J., 1991: The empty place. Poetry, space and being among the Foi of Papua New Guinea, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Weiner, J., 1993: To be at home with Others in an empty place. A reply to Mimica, The Australian journal of anthropology 4, 233–244.Google Scholar
Wylie, A., 1985: The reaction against analogy, in Schiffer, M.B. (ed.), Advances in archaeological method and theory 8, London, 63–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J., 1993: The texture of memory. Holocaust memorials and meaning, New Haven.Google Scholar