Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:12:39.400Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nothing else to think?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2020

Miguel John Versluys
Miguel John Versluys*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, the Netherlands (✉ [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Debate
Information
Antiquity , Volume 94 , Issue 378 , December 2020 , pp. 1646 - 1648
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd

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

Bryant, L.R. 2011. The democracy of objects. Michigan: Open Humanities. https://doi.org/10.3998/ohp.9750134.0001.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Götz, M., Maschek, D. & Roymans, N.. 2020. The dark side of the Empire: Roman expansionism between object agency and predatory regime. Antiquity 94: 1630–1639. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Grazia, V. 2005. Irresistible empire: America's advance through twentieth-century Europe. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 2018. Object-oriented ontology: a new theory of everything. London: Penguin. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.997Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 2019. Where are we heading? The evolution of humans and things. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millett, M. 1990. The Romanization of Britain: an essay in archaeological interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morris, I. 2014. War: what is it good for? The role of conflict in civilization, from primates to robots. London: Profile.Google Scholar
Pitts, M. & Versluys, M.J. (ed.). 2015. Globalisation and the Roman world: world history, connectivity and material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338920Google Scholar
Sahlins, M. 2002. Waiting for Foucault, still. Chicago (IL): Prickly Paradigm.Google Scholar
Terrenato, N. 1998. The deceptive archetype: Roman colonization in Italy and post-colonial thought, in Hurst, H. & Owen, S. (ed.) Ancient colonizations: analogy, similarity, difference: 59–72. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
van Dommelen, P. 2014. Fetishizing the Romans. Archaeological Dialogues 21: 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203814000075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Versluys, M.J. 2014. Understanding objects in motion: an archaeological dialogue on Romanisation. Archaeological Dialogues 21: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203814000038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Versluys, M.J. 2015. Haunting traditions: the (material) presence of Egypt in the Roman world, in Boschung, D., Busch, A. & Versluys, M.J. (ed.) Reinventing ‘the invention of tradition’? Indigenous pasts and the Roman present: 127–58. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Versluys, M.J. 2017. Egypt as part of the Roman koine: mnemohistory and the Iseum Campense in Rome, in Nagel, S., Quack, J.F. & Witschel, C. (ed.) Entangled worlds: religious confluences between East and West in the Roman Empire: 274–93. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Woolf, G. 2017. Roman things and Roman people, in van Oyen, A. & Pitts, M. (ed.) Materialising Roman histories: 211–16. Oxford: Oxbow. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1v2xtgh.20CrossRefGoogle Scholar