Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:58:51.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaeologies ‘now’. Creative interventions in the present for the future

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2011

Rodney Harrison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I thank the commentators for their thoughtful and articulate responses, in which they have quite rightly exposed several inconsistencies and queried or expanded on a number of points that I did not have the time or space to develop in the original piece. In doing so, they raise the important issue of regional variations in the ways in which archaeology is conceived, practised and perceived by its practitioners and publics, which also significantly extends and complicates the original discussion. Rather than comment on specific points, almost all of which are relevant and well made, I want to focus on four linked themes which I think are reflected in different ways across all five comments. These are the relationship of archaeology to modernism and modernity, the value of the archaeological production of a sense of the ‘uncanny’ as an active intervention in the quotidian present, the surface/depth dichotomy, and the question of archaeological methodology in relation to an archaeology in and of the present. In doing so, I hope to provide some important clarification regarding what I mean when I use the terms ‘archaeology in and of the present’, ‘surfaces’ and ‘assemblages’, as well as to take up Ian Russell's challenge to approach more critically the use of artistic metaphors to emphasize the affective qualities and creative possibilities of archaeological practice. Before I move on to do this, I think it is helpful to discuss briefly the circumstances under which this paper was written and its place within a broader emergent programme of research and writing to give some context to what follows.

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , December 2011 , pp. 180 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Andreassen, E., Bjerck, H. and Olsen, B., 2010: Persistent memories. An archaeology of a Soviet mining town in the high Arctic, Trondheim.Google Scholar
Appadurai, A., 2001: The globalisation of archaeology and heritage. A discussion with Arjun Appadurai, Journal of social archaeology 1 (1), 35–49.Google Scholar
Augé, M., 2004: Oblivion, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Bailey, D., 2008: Art to archaeology to archaeology to art, UCD Scholarcast 9, http://www.ucd.ie/scholarcast/scholarcast9.html.Google Scholar
Bellan, G., and Journout, F., 2011: Archéologie de la France moderne et contemporaine, Paris.Google Scholar
Bennett, J., 2010: Vibrant matter. A political ecology of things, Durham and London.Google Scholar
Berman, M., 1982: All that is solid melts into air. The experience of modernity, London.Google Scholar
Bernbeck, R., and Pollock, S., 2007: Grabe, wo du stehst! An archaeology of perpetrators, in Hamilakis, Y. and Duke, P. (eds), Archaeology and capitalism. From ethics to politics, Walnut Creek, CA, 217–34.Google Scholar
Birth, K., 2006: The immanent past. Culture and psyche at the juncture of memory and history, ETHOS 34 (2), 169–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, C., 2004: Antagonism and relational aesthetics, October 110, 51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourriaud, N., 2002: Relational aesthetics, Paris.Google Scholar
Bourriaud, N., 2009: Altermodern. Tate Triennial, London.Google Scholar
Bradley, A., Buchli, V., Fairclough, G., Hicks, D., Miller, J. and Schofield, J., 2004: Change and creation. Historic landscape character 1950–2000, London.Google Scholar
Buchli, V., 2000: An archaeology of socialism, Oxford.Google Scholar
Buchli, V., 2002: Review feature. An archaeology of socialism by Victor Buchli, Cambridge archaeological journal 12, 131–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchli, V., 2007: Afterword. Towards an archaeology of the contemporary past, in McAtackney, L., Palus, M. and Piccini, A. (eds.), Contemporary and historical archaeology in theory. Papers from the 2003 and 2004 CHAT conferences, Oxford, 115–18 (BAR International Series 1677).Google Scholar
Buchli, V., and Lucas, G., 2001a: The absent present. Archaeologies of the contemporary past, in Buchli, V. and Lucas, G. (eds), Archaeologies of the contemporary past, London, 3–18.Google Scholar
Buchli, V., and Lucas, G. (eds.), 2001b: Archaeologies of the contemporary past, London.Google Scholar
Buchli, V., and Lucas, G., 2001c: The archaeology of alienation. A late twentieth-century British council house, in Buchli, V. and Lucas, G. (eds), Archaeologies of the contemporary past, London, 158–67.Google Scholar
Buchli, V., and Lucas, G., 2001d: Bodies of evidence, in Buchli, V. and Lucas, G. (eds), Archaeologies of the contemporary past, London, 121–25.Google Scholar
Buchli, V., and Lucas, G., 2001e: Models of production and consumption. Archaeologies of the contemporary past, in Buchli, V. and Lucas, G. (eds), Archaeologies of the contemporary past, London, 21–25.Google Scholar
Claasen, C., 2002: Book review. Archaeologies of the contemporary past, Journal of anthropological research 58, 553–54.Google Scholar
Cochrane, A., and Russell, I., 2007: Visualizing archaeologies. A manifesto, Cambridge archaeological journal 17 (1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connerton, P., 2009: How modernity forgets, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornu, R., 1990: Voir et savoir, in Chevallier, D. (ed.), Savoir faire et pouvoir transmettre, Paris, 83–100.Google Scholar
Crossland, Z., 2011: The archaeology of contemporary conflict, in Insoll, T. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of the archaeology of ritual and religion, Oxford.Google Scholar
David, N., and Kramer, C., 2001: Ethnoarchaeology in action, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawdy, S.L., 2009: Millennial archaeology. Locating the discipline in the age of insecurity, Archaeological dialogues 16 (2), 131–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawdy, S.L., 2010: Clockpunk anthropology and the ruins of modernity, Current anthropology 51 (6), 761–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLanda, M., 2006: A new philosophy of society. Assemblage theory and social complexity, London and New York.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F., 2004: A thousand plateaus. Capitalism and schizophrenia, London and New York.Google Scholar
DeSilvey, C., 2006: Observing decay. Telling stories with mutable things, Journal of material culture 11, 318–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, H., 2006: Comment posted 22 June, http://contemp-ironbridge.blogspot.com/2006/06/ironbridge-archaeology-van-ii.html.Google Scholar
Dion, M., 1999: Tate Thames dig, London.Google Scholar
Edensor, T., 2005: Industrial ruins. Space, aesthetics and materiality, London and New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgeworth, M., 2003: Acts of discovery. An ethnography of archaeological practice, Oxford (BAR International Series 1131).Google Scholar
Edgeworth, M. (ed.), 2006: Ethnographies of archaeological practice. Cultural encounters, material transformations, Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, M., 2011: Excavation as a ground of archaeological knowledge, Archaeological dialogues 18, 44–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabian, J., 1983: Time and the other. How anthropology makes its object, New York.Google Scholar
Fortenberry, A., and Myers, A. (eds), 2010: Perspectives on the recent past, Archaeologies 6 (1), 1–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freud, S., 2006: The Penguin Freud reader (ed. Phillips, A.), London.Google Scholar
Funari, P.P., and Vieira de Carvalho, A., 2009: The uses of archaeology. A plea for diversity, Archaeological dialogues 16 (2), 179–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funari, P.P., Zarankin, A. and Salerno, M. (eds), 2009: Memories from darkness. Archaeology of repression and resistance in Latin America, New York.Google Scholar
Gatewood, J., 1985: Actions speak louder than words, in Dougherty, J.W. (ed.), Directions in cognitive anthropology, Champaign, 199–219.Google Scholar
Gero, J., 1996: Archaeological practice and gendered encounters with field data, in Gero, J. and Conkey, M. (eds), Engendering archaeology. Women and prehistory, Philadelphia, 251–80.Google Scholar
González-Ruibal, A., 2005: The need for a decaying past. The archaeology of oblivion in contemporary Galicia (NW Spain), Home cultures 2, 129–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Ruibal, A., 2006a: The dream of reason. An archaeology of the failures of modernity in Ethiopia, Journal of social archaeology 6, 175–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Ruibal, A., 2006b: The past is tomorrow. Towards an archaeology of the vanishing present, Norwegian archaeological review 39, 110–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Ruibal, A., 2007: Making things public. Archaeologies of the Spanish Civil War, Public archaeology 6, 203–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Ruibal, A., 2008: Time to destroy. An archaeology of supermodernity, Current anthropology 49 (2), 247–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Ruibal, A., and Hernando, A., 2010: Genealogies of destruction. An archaeology of the contemporary past in the Amazon forest, Archaeologies 6 (1), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, R.A., 2007: Disaster archaeology, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Gould, R.A., and Schiffer, M.B. (eds.) 1981: Modern material culture. The archaeology of us, New York.Google Scholar
Graves-Brown, P., 2000a: Introduction, in Graves-Brown, P. (ed.), Matter, materiality and modern culture, London and New York, 1–9.Google Scholar
Graves-Brown, P. (ed.), 2000b: Matter, materiality and modern culture, London and New York.Google Scholar
Graves-Brown, P., 2007: Avtomat kalashnikova, Journal of material culture 12, 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves-Brown, P., 2009: The privatisation of experience and the archaeology of the future, in Holtorf, C. and Piccini, A. (eds), Contemporary archaeologies. Excavating now, Bern, 201–13.Google Scholar
Graves-Brown, P., forthcoming: Touching from a distance. Alienation, abjection, estrangement and archaeology, Norwegian archaeological review.Google Scholar
Hall, M., 2010: Memory work. Keynote address to Society for Post-medieval Archaeology, University of Glasgow, 3 September.Google Scholar
Hamilakis, Y., 2004: The fragments of modernity and the archaeologies of the future. Response to Gregory Jusdanis, Modernism/modernity 11 (1), 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, O.J.T., and Sørensen, T.F., 2010: Rethinking emotion and material culture. Archaeological dialogues 17, 145–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G.G., Rathje, W.L. and Hughes, W.W., 1975: Food waste behavior in an urban population, Journal of nutrition education 7, 13–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, R., in prep. a: Reassembling ethnographic museum collections, in Harrison, R., Byrne, S. and Clarke, A. (eds), Reassembling the collection. Ethnographic museums and indigenous agency, Santa Fe.Google Scholar
Harrison, R., in prep. b: The new critical heritage studies, Abingdon and New York.Google Scholar
Harrison, R., and Schofield, J. (eds), 2009: Archaeo-ethnography, auto-archaeology. Introducing archaeologies of the contemporary past, Archaeologies 5 (2), 185–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, R., and Schofield, J., 2010: After modernity. Archaeological approaches to the contemporary past, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, G., 2005: Animism. Respecting the living world, London.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1962: Being and time, trans. Macquarrie, John and Robinson, Edward, Oxford.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1977: The origin of the work of art, in Heidegger, M., Basic writings (ed. Krell, D.F.), New York, 80–101.Google Scholar
Hicks, D., 2010: Intimate distance. Three kinds of detachment in the archaeology of the modern, online at http://weweremodern.blogspot.com/2010/04/three-kinds-of-detachment-in.html, accessed 17 December 2010.Google Scholar
Hicks, D., and Beaudry, M.C., 2006: Introduction. The place of historical archaeology, in Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M.C. (eds), The Cambridge companion to historical archaeology, Cambridge, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I., 1987: Bow ties and pet foods. Material culture and change in British industry, in Hodder, I. (ed.), The archaeology of contextual meanings, Cambridge, 11–19.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 2000 (ed.), Towards reflexive method in archaeology. The example at Çatalhöyük, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., and Berggren, A., 2003: Social practice, method and some problems of field archaeology, American antiquity 68 (3), 421–34.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C., and Piccini, A. (eds), 2009: Contemporary archaeologies. Excavating now, Bern.Google Scholar
Horning, A., 2011: Subduing tendencies? Colonialism, capitalism and comparative Atlantic archaeologies, in Croucher, S. and Weiss, L. (eds), The archaeology of capitalism in colonial contexts. Postcolonial historical archaeologies, New York.Google Scholar
Horton, M., 2011: Re: the contemporary archaeology. Contemporary and Historical Archaeology in Theory discussion list, 1 May.Google Scholar
Hummler, M., 2010: Overburden?, Antiquity 84, 921–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T., 2007a: Lines, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T., 2007b: Materials against materiality, Archaeological dialogues 14, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T., 2010: Bringing things to life. Creative entanglements in a world of materials, ESRC National Centre for Research Methods working paper, series 15, available at http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/1306/1/0510_creative_entanglements.pdf, accessed 19 May 2011.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 2011: Archaeology, anthropology, art and architecture, London.Google Scholar
Jameson, F., 2005: Archaeologies of the future. The desire called utopia and other fictions, London and New York.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.H., 1989: Conceptions of agency in archaeological interpretation, Journal of anthropological archaeology 8, 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M.H., 2001: Of matters material, Cambridge archaeological journal 11, 134–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koshar, R., 2001: From monuments to traces. Artifacts of German memory 1870–1990, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1987: Science in action, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1993: We have never been modern, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 2005: Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network theory, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B., and Woolgar, S., 1979: Laboratory life. The social construction of scientific facts, Beverley Hills.Google Scholar
Law, J., 1994: Organizing modernity, Oxford and Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C., 1955: Tristes tropiques, Paris.Google Scholar
Lucas, G., 2001: Critical approaches to fieldwork. Contemporary and historical archaeological practice, London and New York.Google Scholar
Lucas, G., 2004: Modern disturbances. On the ambiguities of archaeology, Modernism/modernity 11 (1), 109–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, G., 2005: The archaeology of time, London and New York.Google Scholar
Lucas, G., 2006: Historical archaeology and time, in Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M. (eds.) The Cambridge companion to historical archaeology, Cambridge, 34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, G., 2010: Time and the archaeological archive, Rethinking history 14, 343–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAtackney, L., Palus, M. and Piccini, A. (eds), 2007: Contemporary and historical archaeology in theory. Papers from the 2003 and 2004 CHAT conferences, Oxford (BAR International Series 1677).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marinetti, F.T. 2005 (1910/1915): Futurist speech to the English, in Rainey, L. (ed.), Modernism. An anthology, Oxford, 6–9.Google Scholar
Murdoch, J., 1997: Inhuman/nonhuman/human. Actor-network theory and the prospects for a nondualistic and symmetrical perspective on nature and society, Environment and planning D. Society and space 15 (6), 731–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, A., 2011: Contemporary archaeology in transit. The artifacts of a 1991 van. International journal of historical archaeology 15, 138–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitzan, J., 1998: Differential accumulation. Towards a new political economy of capital, Review of international political economy 5 (2), 169–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, B., 2008: Dust and debitage. An archaeology of Francis Bacon's studio, UCD Scholarcast 10, http://www.ucd.ie/scholarcast/scholarcast10.html.Google Scholar
Olivier, L., 2000: L'impossible archéologie de la mémoire. A propos de W ou le souvenir d'enfance de Georges Perec, European journal of archaeology 3, 387–406.Google Scholar
Olivier, L., 2003: The past of the present. Archaeological memory and time, Archaeological dialogues 10, 204–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivier, L., 2008: Le sombre abîme du temps. Archéologie et mémoire, Paris.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., 2003: Material culture after text. Re-membering things, Norwegian archaeological review 36 (2), 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., 2010: In defense of things. Archaeology and the ontology of objects, Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., and Svestad, A., 1994: Creating prehistory. Archaeology museums and the discourse of modernism, Nordisk Museologi, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orvill, M., 1989: The real thing. Imitation and authenticity in American culture 1880–1940, London.Google Scholar
Osborne, P., 1995: The politics of time. Modernity and the avant-garde, London.Google Scholar
Pearson, M., and Shanks, M., 2001: Theatre/Archaeology, London and New York.Google Scholar
Penrose, S., 2007: Images of change. An archaeology of England's contemporary landscape, Swindon.Google Scholar
Perec, G., 1999: Species of spaces and other pieces, London.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M., 2009 (1966): The tacit dimension, Chicago.Google Scholar
Polidori, R., 1993: Zones of exclusion. Pripyat and Chernobyl, Steidl.Google Scholar
Polidori, R., 2006: After the flood, Steidl.Google Scholar
Prown, J.D., 1982: Mind in matter. An approach to material culture. Winterthur portfolio 17, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinow, P., 1996: Making PCR. A story of biotechnology, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinow, P., 1999: French DNA. Trouble in purgatory, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinow, P., 2003: Anthropos today. Reflections on modern equipment, Princeton.Google Scholar
Rabinow, P., 2008: Marking time. On the anthropology of the contemporary, Princeton and Oxford.Google Scholar
Rabinow, P., and Marcus, G.E. with Faubion, J.D. and Rees, T., 2008: Designs for an anthropology of the contemporary, Durham and London.Google Scholar
Rathje, W.L., 1974: The garbage problems. A new way of looking at the problems of archaeology, Archaeology 27, 236–41.Google Scholar
Rathje, W.L., 1979: Modern material culture studies, Advances in archaeological method and theory 2, 1–37.Google Scholar
Rathje, W.L., 1984: The garbage decade, American behavioral scientist 28, 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathje, W.L., 1989: Rubbish! Atlantic monthly 246, 99–109.Google Scholar
Rathje, W.L., 1991: Once and future landfills, National geographic 179 (5), 116–34.Google Scholar
Rathje, W.L., 1996: The archaeology of us, in Ciegelski, C. (ed.), Encyclopaedia Britannica's yearbook of science and the future 1997, New York, 159–77.Google Scholar
Rathje, W.L., 2001: Integrated archaeology. A garbage paradigm, in Buchli, V. and Lucas, G. (eds), Archaeologies of the contemporary past, London and New York, 63–76.Google Scholar
Rathje, W.L., 2004: Archeologia zintegrowana. Paradygmat smietnikowy (tr. Stachura, Pawel), Czas Kultury 4, 4–21, reprinted from Rathje 2001.Google Scholar
Rathje, W.L., and Harrison, G.G., 1978: Monitoring trends in food utilization. Application of an archaeological method, Proceedings, Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology 37, 49–54.Google Scholar
Rathje, W.L., and Ho, E.E., 1987: Meat fat madness. Conflicting patterns of meat fat consumption and their public implications, Journal of the American Dietetic Association 87, 1357–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathje, W.L., and Hughes, W.W., 1975: The Garbage Project as a nonreactive approach, in Sinaiko, H.W. and Broedling, L.A. (eds), Perspectives on attitude assessment. Surveys and their alternatives, 151–67, Washington, DC (Smithsonian Institution, Technical Report 2).Google Scholar
Rathje, W.L., Hughes, W.W. and Jernigan, S.L., 1976: The science of garbage. Following the consumer through his garbage can, Proceedings, American Marketing Association, 56–64.Google Scholar
Rathje, W.L., and Murphy, C., 1992: Rubbish! The archaeology of garbage, New York.Google Scholar
Rathje, W.L., and Murphy, C., 2001 (1992): Rubbish! The archaeology of garbage, New York.Google Scholar
Reid, J.J., Rathje, W.L. and Schiffer, M.B., 1974: Expanding archaeology, American antiquity 39, 125–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1999: It may be art but is it archaeology? Science as art and art as science, in Dion, M. (ed.), Archaeology, London.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 2003: Figuring it out, London.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., Gosden, C. and DeMarrais, E., 2004: Substance, memory, display, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Romany, W.G., 2010: Beauty in decay. Urbex: the art of urban exploration, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Rosen, P., 2003: Introduction, in McLaughlin, K. and Rosen, P. (eds), Benjamin now. Critical encounters with the Arcades Project, Durham, 1–15.Google Scholar
Rothschild, N.A., 2003: Book review. Archaeologies of the contemporary past, American anthropologist 105 (1), 182–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, J.H., 1965: The Renaissance foundations of anthropology, American anthropologist 67, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, I., 2006: Introductions, in Russell, I. (ed.), Images, representations and heritage, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, I., 2008: Art, archaeology and the contemporary, Museum Ireland 18, 85–105.Google Scholar
Russell, I., forthcoming: Archaeological influences in art, in Fagan, B. (ed.), Oxford companion to archaeology, Oxford.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B., 1972: Archaeological context and systemic context, American antiquity 37 (2), 156–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, M.B., 1976: Behavioral archeology, London and New York.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B., 1991: The portable radio in American life, Tucson.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B., 1992: Technological perspectives on behavioral change, Tucson.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B., 2000: Indigenous theories, scientific theories and product histories, in Graves-Brown, P. (ed.), Matter, materiality and modern culture, London and New York, 172–96.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B., Butts, T.C. and Grimm, K.K., 1994: Taking charge. The electric automobile in America, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B., Downing, T.E. and McCarthy, M., 1981: Waste not, want not. An ethnoarchaeological study of reuse in Tucson, Arizona, in Gould, R.A. and Schiffer, M.B. (eds), Modern material culture. The archaeology of us, New York, 67–86.Google Scholar
Schlanger, N., 2004: The past is in the present. On the history and archives of archaeology, Modernism/modernity 11, 165–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnapp, A., Shanks, M. and Tiews, M., 2004: Archaeology, modernism, modernity, Modernism/modernity 11 (1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schofield, J. (ed.), 2010: Archaeology and contemporary society, World archaeology 4 (3), 325–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schofield, J., and >Cocroft, W. (eds.) 2007: A fearsome heritage. Diverse legacies of the Cold War, Walnut Creek.Google Scholar
Schuyler, R.L., 1982: Book review. Modern material culture. The archaeology of us, American anthropologist 84 (4), 937–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J., 1998: Seeing like a state. How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed, New Haven.Google Scholar
Serres, M., 2008: The five senses. A philosophy of mingled bodies, London and New York.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., 1991: Experiencing the past, London.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., 1992: Experiencing the past. On the character of archaeology, London.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., 2011: The archaeological imagination, online at http://documents.stanford.edu/michaelshanks/57, accessed 8 June 2011.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., and McGuire, R., 1996: The craft of archaeology, American antiquity 61, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanks, M., and Pearson, M., 2001: Theatre/archaeology, London.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., Platt, D. and Rathje, W.L., 2004: The perfume of garbage. Modernity and the archaeological, Modernism/modernity 11 (1), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C., 1992 (1987): Re-constructing archaeology (2nd edn), Cambridge.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., and Witmore, C., 2010: Memory practices and the archaeological imagination in risk society. Design and long term community, in Russell, I. and Koerner, S. (eds), Unquiet pasts. Theoretical perspectives on archaeology and cultural heritage, Burlington, 269–90.Google Scholar
Smiles, S., and Moser, S. (eds), 2005: Envisioning the past. Archaeology and the image, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, D.E., 1983: Book review. Modern material culture. The archaeology of us, American antiquity 48 (3), 644–46.Google Scholar
Taylor, W.W., 1969: Review of New perspectives in archeology Edited by Binford, S.R. and Binford, L.R., Science 165, 382–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, W.W., 1972: Old wine and new skins. A contemporary parable, in Leone, M. (ed.), Contemporary archaeology, Carbondale, 28–33.Google Scholar
Thomas, J., 2004: Archaeology and modernity, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J., 2009: Sigmund Freud's archaeological metaphor and archaeology's self-understanding, in Holtorf, C. and Piccini, A. (eds), Contemporary archaeologies. Excavating now, Bern, 33–45.Google Scholar
Thomas, N., 1991: Entangled objects. Exchange, material culture and colonialism in the Pacific, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, J., 2007: The culture of speed. The coming of immediacy, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trigger, B.G., 1996: A history of archaeological thought, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Virilio, P., 1986: Speed and politics. An essay on dromology, New York.Google Scholar
Viveiros de Castro, E., 2004: Exchanging perspectives. The transformation of objects into subjects in Amerindian cosmologies, Common knowledge 10 (3), 463–84.Google Scholar
Voss, B., 2010: Matter out of time. The paradox of the ‘contemporary past’, Archaeologies 6 (1), 181–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakelin, P., 2002: Book review. Archaeologies of the contemporary past, Journal of design history 15 (1), 60–62.Google Scholar
Webmoor, T., 2007: What about ‘one more turn after the social’ in archaeological reasoning? Taking things seriously, World archaeology 39 (4), 547–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webmoor, T., and Witmore, C.L., 2008: Things are us! A commentary on human/things relations under the banner of a ‘social’ archaeology, Norwegian archaeological review 41 (1), 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickstead, H., 2008: Drawing archaeology, in Duff, L. and Sawdon, P. (eds), Drawing. The purpose, Bristol.Google Scholar
Witmore, C.L., 2004: On multiple fields. Between the material world and media. Two cases from the Peloponnesus, Greece, Archaeological dialogues 11, 133–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C.L., 2006a: ‘Archaeology and modernity’ – or archaeology and a modernist amnesia?, Norwegian archaeological review 39, 49–52.Google Scholar
Witmore, C.L., 2006b: Vision, media, noise and the percolation of time, Journal of material culture 11, 267–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C.L., 2007: Landscape, time, topology. An archaeological account of the southern Argolid, Greece, in Hicks, D., Fairclough, G. and McAtackney, L. (eds), Envisioning landscape. Situations and standpoints in archaeology and heritage. Walnut Creek, CA, 194–225.Google Scholar
Witmore, C.L., in press: The realities of the past. Archaeology, object-orientations, pragmatology, in Fortenberry, B.R. and McAtackney, L. (eds), Modern materials. The proceedings of CHAT Oxford, 2009, Oxford.Google Scholar
Woolgar, S., 1988: Science. The very idea, London.Google Scholar
Yarrow, T., 2003: Artefactual persons. The relational capacities of persons and things in the practice of excavation, Norwegian archaeological review 36 (1), 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, L.J., Singleton, C. and Welch, J., 2010: Activism and creating a translational archaeology of homelessness, World archaeology 42 (3), 443–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar