Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:27:41.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The unburied. On archaeological objects and objectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2018

Gavin Lucas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Assaf Nativ has written a bold and challenging paper and one which prompts a great deal of reflection. Although highly theoretical, it is also a paper that engages quite directly with the concerns of our discipline and is a good example of what one might dub philosophical (or meta-)archaeology rather than philosophy applied to archaeology. Moreover, Nativ has a very clear style of exposition that gives the reader a great deal to sink his or her teeth into. Which is precisely what I want to do now. And if what follows seems excessively critical or negative, I hope it will also be taken as a sign of my respect for his taking on a topic fraught with difficulties and a conviction that my commentary should try and match up to his own carefully argued text.

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , June 2018 , pp. 21 - 25
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

Bailey, G., Newland, C., Nilsson, A. and Schofield, J., 2009: Transit, transition. Excavating J641 VUJ. Cambridge archaeological journal 19 (1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, G., 2012: Understanding the archaeological record, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, G., 2013: Afterword. Archaeology and the science of new objects, in Alberti, B., Jones, A.M. and Pollard, J. (eds), Archaeology after interpretation, London, 369–80.Google Scholar
Lucas, G., 2015b: Evidence of what? On the possibilities of archaeological interpretation, in Chapman, R. and Wylie, A. (eds), Material evidence, London, 311–23.Google Scholar