Artefactual Persons: The Relational Capacities of Persons and Things in the Practice of Excavation

Norwegian Archaeological Review

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 65-73

  Yarrow, Thomas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 17244365619     PISSN: 00293652     EISSN: 15027678     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00293650307296     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Andrews, G., Barrett, J. C., and Lewis, J. S. C., 2000. Interpretation not record. The practice of archaeology. Antiquity, 74:525–530.
2. Barrett, J. C., 1995. Some Challenges in Contemporary Archaeology, Oxford:Oxbow.
3. Chadwick, A., 1998. “Archaeology at the edge of Chaos. Further towards reflexive excavation methodologies”. Assemblage 3. (http://www. shef.ac.uk/assem/3/)
4. Crook, T. n.d. The textual person. Unpubl. manuscript delivered at The University of Edinburgh 1999.
5. Edmonds, M., 1995. Stone Tools and Society, London:Batsford.
6. Gell, A., 1998. Art and Agency. An Anthropological Theory, Oxford:OUP.
7. Wright, R., ed. 1996. “Gero Archaeological practice and gendered encounters with field data”. In Gender and Archaeology 126–139.
8. Gosden, C., 1994. Social Being and Time, Oxford:Blackwell.
9. Hodder, I., 1986. Reading the Past. Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, Cambridge:CUP.
10. Hodder, I., 1997. Always momentary, fluid and flexible. Towards a reflexive excavation methodology. Antiquity, 71:691–700.
11. Hodder, I., 1999. “Towards a reflexive method”. In The Archaeological Process. An Introduction, Edited by:Hodder, I., Oxford:Blackwell.
12. Holtorf, C., 2002. Notes on the life history of a pot sherd. Journal of Material Culture, 7(1):49–71.
13. Jones, A., 2002. Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice, Cambridge:CUP.
14. Knappett, C., 2002. Photographs, skeumorphs and marionettes. Some thoughts on mind, agency and object. Journal of Material Culture, 7(1):97–117.
15. Latour, B., 1987. Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Milton Keynes:Open University Press.
16. Latour, B., 1993. We Have Never Been Modem, London:Harvester Wheatsheaf.
17. 1999. Pandora’s Hope. Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Latour
18. Law, J., and Hassard, J., eds. 1999. Actor Network Theory and After, Sociological Review Monograph Oxford
19. Lucas, G., 2001. Critical Approaches to Field Archaeology. Contemporary and Historical Archaeological Practice, London:Routledge.
20. Hodder, I., Shanks, M., Alexandri, A., Buchli, V., Carmen, J., Last, J., and Lucas, G., eds. 1995. “Richards Knowing about the past”. In Interpreting Archaeology. Finding Meaning in the Past 216–219.
21. Shanks, M., and Tilley, C., 1987. Reconstructing Archaeology, Cambridge:CUP.
22. Strathem, M., 1988. The Gender of The Gift. Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia, London:University of California Press.
23. Thomas, J., 1996. Time, Culture and Identity, London:Routledge.
24. Tilley, C., 1989. Excavation as theatre. Antiquity, 63:275–280.
25. Wagner, R., 1986. Symbols that Stand for Themselves, Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
26. Weiner, J. F., 1988. The Heart of the Pearlshell. The Mythological Dimension of For Society, Berkeley:University of California Press.
27. Woolgar, S., 1988. Science. The Very Idea, Chichester:Ellis Horwood.