Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:02:43.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The symmetry–asymmetry continuum of human–thing and human–human relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2017

Stephen A. Mrozowski
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There's an old Ry Cooder song – written by Bobby Miller – entitled ‘If walls could talk’ (not the Celine Dion song), whose refrain is ‘Ain't you glad that things don't talk’. Archaeologists clearly wish things could talk because we, more than most, appreciate the power of things and the close relationships that exist between humans and things and their shared histories. I was struck by this one day sitting reading a book in my bedroom. I glanced up, looked around me and realized that everything in that room would be there the day after I died – everything. In fact my things would clearly outlive me, and regardless of what attachment or lack of attachment I might have to any of those things, I would not be the ultimate arbiter of their fate. That would be left to others who for a whole host of reasons might not share the same relationship with these things that I had. Most would probably be discarded while others might be kept. Those choices are just one example of the kinds of emotions and calculations that surround human–thing (HT) and human–human (HH) relations.

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , December 2017 , pp. 139 - 142
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

Bagley, J.M., Mrozowski, S.A., Law-Pezzarossi, H. and Steinberg, J., 2015: Nipmuc homestead of Sarah Boston, Grafton, Massachusetts, Northeast historical archaeology 43 (1), 9–18.Google Scholar
Bender, B., 1999: Stonehenge. Making space (materializing culture), Oxford.Google Scholar
Bennett, J., 2010: Vibrant matter. A political ecology of things, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
Cipolla, C.N., and Quinn, J., 2016: Field school archaeology the Mohegan way. Reflections on twenty years of community-based research and teaching, Journal of community archaeology & heritage 3 (2), 118–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLanda, M., 2016: Assemblage theory, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F., 1987: A thousand plateaus, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.J., 1979: The ecological approach to visual perception, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
González-Ruibal, A., 2006: The past is tomorrow. Towards an archaeology of the vanishing present, Norwegian archaeological review 39 (2), 110–25.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 2012: Entangled. An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things, Oxford.Google Scholar
Horning, A., 2011: Compelling futures and even-present pasts. Realigning the archaeology of us, Archaeological dialogues 18 (2), 161–64.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 2015: The life of lines, London.Google Scholar
Ljungkvist, J., 2006: En hiar atti rikr. Om elit, struktur och ekonomi kring Uppsala och Mälaren under yngre järnålder, Uppsala.Google Scholar
Ljungkvist, J., and Frölund, P., 2015: Gamla Uppsala. The emergence of a centre and magnate complex, Journal of archaeology and ancient history 16, 1– 30.Google Scholar
Lucas, G., 2015a: Archaeology and contemporaneity, Archaeological dialogues 22 (1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Mrozowski, S.A., 2013: The tyranny of prehistory and the search for a deeper history, in Schmidt, P.R. and Mrozowski, S.A. (eds), The death of prehistory, Oxford, 220–40.Google Scholar
Mrozowski, S.A., 2014: Imagining an archaeology of the future. Capitalism and colonialism past and present, International journal of historical archaeology 18, 340–60.Google Scholar
Mrozowski, S.A., 2016: Entangled histories, entangled worlds. Reflections on time, space, and place, in Der, L. and Fernandini, F. (eds), Archaeology of entanglement, Walnut Creek, CA, 191–213.Google Scholar
Mrozowski, S.A., Herbster, H., Brown, D. and Priddy, K.L., 2009: Magunkaquog materiality, federal recognition, and the search for a deeper history, International journal of historical archaeology 13 (4), 430–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., 2010: In defense of things. Archaeology and the ontology of objects, Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., and Witmore, C., 2015: Archaeology, symmetry and the ontology of things. A response to critics, Archaeological dialogues 22 (2), 187–97.Google Scholar
Parker Pearson, M., 2012: Stonehenge. Exploring the greatest Stone Age mystery. London.Google Scholar
Rajagopal, A., 2011: The emergency as prehistory of the new Indian middle class, Modern Asian studies 45 (5), 1003–49.Google Scholar
Rushe, D., 2017: www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/05/swing-state-voters-donald-trump-youngstown-ohio, accessed 5 May 2017.Google Scholar
Schmidt, P.R., and Mrozowski, S.A. (eds), 2013: The death of prehistory, Oxford.Google Scholar
Wurst, L.A., and Mrozowski, S.A., 2014: Toward an archaeology of the future, International journal of historical archaeology 18, 210–23.Google Scholar