Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:31:06.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The asymmetries of disentanglement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2017

Konrad A. Antczak
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this dialogue, Hodder and Lucas skilfully manoeuvre the winding trails of archaeological theory during the last decades and critically juxtapose the discussion of symmetry and asymmetry of relations between entities with that of entanglement. Their provocative dialogue compellingly leads to the conclusion that most entanglements are in fact asymmetrical. Whereas I mostly concur with the conclusions of the dialogue, addressing the authors’ closing statements I would like to highlight the need to equally (in some ways, symmetrically) consider disentanglement as the process opposite to entanglement, along with the consequences of such disentanglement. If we are to understand better the contexts and politics of entanglements – concerns that this dialogue brings to the fore – I furthermore suggest that we more closely scrutinize the density (quantity) and joining (quality) of entanglements, as well as pay closer attention to memory, emotion and affect in entanglements.

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , December 2017 , pp. 144 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Dawdy, S.L., 2016: Patina. A profane archaeology, Chicago.Google Scholar
Hamilakis, Y., 2017: Sensorial assemblages. Affect, memory and temporality in assemblage thinking, Cambridge archaeological journal 27, 169–82.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 2012: Entangled. An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 2016a: Degrees of dependence. The example of the introduction of pottery in the Middle East and at Çatalhöyük, in Der, L. and Fernandini, F. (eds), Archaeology of entanglement, London, 235–50.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 2016b: Studies in human–thing entanglement, Open Access.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., and Mol, A., 2016: Network analysis and entanglement, Journal of archaeological method and theory 23, 1–29.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 2015: The life of lines, London.Google Scholar
Tarlow, S., 2012: The archaeology of emotion and affect, Annual review of anthropology 41, 169–85.Google Scholar