Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:30:46.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

For the objects, archaeology and the archaeological

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2018

Extract

Archaeology turns round its objects as much as it turns them out. This is partially an artefact of its reflection, which is not always linear; it is sometimes cyclic. The cyclic is not a perfect circle. Our objects open themselves in new ways to archaeological engagement, but this new relevance surfaces through creative inspiration triangulated off previous orientations. In revolving around our objects, inevitably we return to a familiar place, even though it is where we have never been (González-Ruibal 2014). The linear orientation, by contrast, is progressive. It fashions its every step anew. Thus its movement is supersessive – it pushes forward by violently casting overboard what is considered to be of less value (often on misconstrued grounds) and assuming its position. Whereas the former oscillates with various degrees of awareness, the latter strikes out with inevitable levels of amnesia. To attain a genuinely novel position one must struggle against forgetting former orientations, for to eliminate is to run the risk of repetition – blind to whether or not one ever truly invents – and even redundancy – with multiple copies the impact of our work is diminished. Still, if true improvement constitutes progress, then archaeology, when properly executed, moves in spirals, and our objects move with us.

Type
Discussion
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

Edgeworth, M., 2016: Grounded objects. Archaeology and speculative realism, Archaeological dialogues 23 (1), 93113.Google Scholar
Erlandson, J.M., 1984: A case study in faunalturbation. Delineating the effects of the burrowing pocket gopher on the distribution of archaeological materials. American antiquity 49 (4), 785–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Ruibal, A., 2014: Returning to where we have never been. Excavating the ruins of modernity, in Olsen, B. and Pétursdóttir, Þ. (eds), Ruin memories. Materiality, aesthetics and the archaeology of the recent past, London, 367–89.Google Scholar
Harman, G., 2016. Immaterialism. Objects and social theory, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Nativ, A., 2017: No compensation needed. On archaeology and the archaeo-logical, Journal of archaeological method and theory 24, 659–75.Google Scholar
Olivier, L., 2011: The dark abyss of time. Archaeology and memory, Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., 2012: After interpretation. Remembering archaeology, Current Swedish archaeology 20, 1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., Shanks, M., Webmoor, T. and Witmore, C.L., 2012: Archaeology. The discipline of things, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Witmore, C., 2012: The realities of the past. Archaeology, object-orientations, pragmatology, in Fortenberry, B.R. and McAtackney, L. (eds), Modern materials. Proceedings from the Contemporary and Historical Archaeology in Theory Conference 2009, Oxford, 2536.Google Scholar
Witmore, C., 2013: Which archaeology? A question of chronopolitics, in González-Ruibal, A. (ed.), Reclaiming archaeology. Beyond the tropes of modernity, Oxford, 130–44.Google Scholar
Witmore, C., 2014: Archaeology and the new materialisms, Journal of contemporary archaeology 1 (2), 203–46.Google Scholar
Witmore, C., 2017: Things are the grounds of all archaeology, in Blaising, J.M., Legendre, J.P. and Olivier, L. (eds), Clashes of times. Archaeology in the age of presentism, Louvain.Google Scholar