Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-27gpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-18T16:17:28.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Archaeology after interpretation. Returning humanity to archaeological theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2016

Abstract

Do archaeologists recover the material record of past processes or the residues of the material conditions that made the presence of a kind of humanness possible? This paper attempts to emphasize the importance of distinguishing between these two options and argues the case for, and briefly contemplates the practical implications of, an archaeology of the human presence.

Type
Discussion
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Andrews, G., Barrett, J.C. and Lewis, J.S.C., 2000: Interpretation not record. The practice of archaeology, Antiquity 74, 525–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 2013: Genes and agents. Closing the theoretical gap, in Bergerbrant, S. and Sabatini, S. (eds), Counterpoint. Essays in archaeology and heritage studies in honour of Professor Kristian Kristiansen, Oxford, 575–82.Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 2015: The environment of social evolution, in Kristiansen, K., Šmejda, L. and Turek, J. (eds), Paradigm found. Archaeological theory – present, past and future, Oxford, 3646.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R., 1977: General introduction, in Binford, L.R. (ed.), For theory building in archaeology. Essays on faunal remains, aquatic resources, spatial analysis and systemic modelling, London, 113.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J., 2015: Beyond theoretical archaeology. A manifesto for reconstructing interpretation in archaeology, in Kristiansen, K., Šmejda, L. and Turek, J. (eds), Paradigm found. Archaeological theory – present, past and future, Oxford, 2435.Google Scholar
Clarke, D.L., 1973: Archaeology. The loss of innocence, Antiquity 47 (1), 618.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R.C., 1978: Style and function. A fundamental dichotomy, American antiquity 43 (2), 192202.Google Scholar
Flannery, K., 1967: Culture history v. culture process. A debate in American archaeology, Scientific American 217, 119–22.Google Scholar
Friedman, J., and Rowlands, M., 1977: Notes towards an epigenetic model of the evolution of ‘civilisation’, in Friedman, J. and Rowlands, M. (eds), The evolution of social systems, London, 201–76.Google Scholar
Jones, A.M., and Alberti, B., 2013: Archaeology after interpretation, in Alberti, B., Jones, A.M. and Pollard, J. (eds), Archaeology after interpretation. Returning materials to archaeological theory, Walnut Creek, CA, 1535.Google Scholar
Kauffman, S., 2000: Investigations, Oxford.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C., 1966: The science of the concrete, in Lévi-Strauss, C., The savage mind, London, 133.Google Scholar
Maturana, H.R., and Varela, F.J., 1980: Autopoiesis and cognition. The realization of the living, Dordrecht (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science).Google Scholar
Miller, D., 2005: Materiality. An introduction, in Miller, D. (ed.), Materiality, London, 150.Google Scholar
Oyama, S., 2000: The ontogeny of information. Developmental systems and evolution, 2nd edn, revised, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
Patrik, L., 1985: Is there an archaeological record? Advances in archaeological method and theory 8, 2762.Google Scholar
Thompson, E., 2007: Mind in life. Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Wright, G.H. von, 1971: Explanation and understanding, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar