Archaeology without antiquity

Nativ, Assaf; Lucas, Gavin

doi:10.15184/aqy.2020.90

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our project here is theoretical, based in environmental values and their relationships to Indigenous histories, rather than in the collection of empirical data or artifacts. However, in the broad sense of seeking to understand the significance of the material culture people are leaving on public lands, our work is adjacent to archaeologies of the contemporary, which turn archaeological methods on the very recent past (see, e.g., Buchli and Lucas, 2001; Harrison, 2016; Harrison and Breithoff, 2017; Nativ and Lucas, 2020; Rathje, 1979). Archaeologists working on the contemporary argue that, contrary to the many other kinds of evidence available for the recent past, a focus on material culture illuminates the nondiscursive and clandestine and renders unfamiliar that which is familiar (Buchli and Lucas, 2001; Graves‐Brown, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leaving traces: Fairy houses, kindness stones, and constructed heritage

Turner,

Turner

2023

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The National Park Service and many other federal, state, and local land managers in the US enjoin visitors to “leave no trace” when visiting parks and wilderness areas. At the same time, practices that involve leaving traces—painted rocks, rock cairns, and fairy houses—have become well established on some public lands. Public discussions reveal deep divides in how people view these traces in a time of increased pressures on public lands. This article develops an anthropological analysis of the practice of leaving traces at Mesa Verde National Park, in Colorado, and Machimoodus State Park, in Connecticut. Taking an approach that aligns with recent work on archaeologies of the contemporary, we interrogate the meaning of these material traces and consider how these practices of constructing cultural heritage in spaces perceived as “natural” provide a quasi‐archaeological experience and reenact colonialist processes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leaving traces: Fairy houses, kindness stones, and constructed heritage

Turner,

Turner

2023

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some aspects of these developments have been considered by what is currently known in the humanities and social sciences as the turn towards material culture, materiality, materials and material ecology, and their role in the constitution of the individual and society (e.g., Dobres & Hoffman 1994;Ingold 2007;de Marrais et al 1996;Miller 1987: 19-43;2005: 1-50;Miller & Tilley 1996;Olsen 2007;Olsen & Witmore 2015;Olsen et al 2012: 196-210;Thomas 2000;Tilley 2007;Witmore 2015). Nevertheless, the theoretical and methodological approach presented in this article does not have its roots in, nor is it inspired by, this ontological and epistemological turn that has occurred, especially in the Englishspeaking world, since the 1990s and continues, with multiple divergences, to the present (see a summary of these approaches and their potential applications to prehistoric archaeology in Hussain & Will 2020;Nativ & Lucas 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time, memory and alterity in prehistoric lithic technology: Synthesis and perspectives of the French technogenetic approach

Weyer

Pérez

Hoguin

et al. 2022

JLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The technogenetic approach in the field of prehistoric lithic technology studies originated in the late 1980s. Traditional approaches, such as typology and production technology, have tended to approach prehistoric lithic objects through their socio-cultural and economic dimensions, without really considering the existence of a technogenesis prior to these contingencies. The apprehension of this technogenetic dimension in prehistory will call upon both the philosophy and the anthropology of techniques to lead to a double approach of the artefacts: a technogenetic approach of the lithic object according to the technical criteria of its genesis; and a psychosocial approach of the object according to the criteria proper to its artisanal production within a major technical system. The objective of this article is to identify two fundamental existences constituting the technical object, one internal (technogenetic) with technical lineages and the other external (psychosocial) with technical trajectories. The spatio-temporal distribution of prehistoric technical otherness on different continents has logically led to new questions, findings and new criteria of analysis. On this basis, our approach will aim to revisit the main conceptual axes of the foundations of the technological approach, to clarify old questions while developing new expertise. Through the application of key concepts such as time, memory and otherness, an overall methodology will also be discussed and will help proposing its epistemological line.

show abstract

“…Heritage, in all its diverse expressions, is made up of our selective memories of past communities' ways of living (for selected alternative definitions of this slippery term see [1][2][3]). Archaeology, generally described as "the study of material remains or traces of human activity," [4] (p. 853) is an active component in many expressions of heritage. Practitioners in both archaeology and heritage continuously negotiate the connections between their fields.…”

Section: Introduction 1this Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Values-Led Design Cards: Building Ethically Engaged Archaeology and Heritage Experiences

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The agenda for an engaged and impactful archaeology has been set out emphatically in a variety of recent reports, positioning archaeology and heritage as important sources of public value and social benefit. While many ascribe to these aims, how to put them into practice in concrete terms remains a real challenge. Tools, methods and methodologies developed for the wider research community as it engages with the “impact agenda” at large have been adapted and applied in archaeological and heritage practice with variable success. In this paper, we discuss the creation of a values-led, card-based design toolkit and the considerations involved in customising it for use by archaeology and heritage sector practitioners. We evaluate reflexive feedback from participants in a toolkit testing workshop, together with our own reflections on the workshop experience. Building on these, we assess the potential and limitations of the toolkit and its underpinning values-led design theory to generate critically engaged archaeological and heritage experiences.

show abstract

Archaeology without antiquity

Abstract: Abstract

Cited by 12 publications

References 40 publications

Leaving traces: Fairy houses, kindness stones, and constructed heritage

Leaving traces: Fairy houses, kindness stones, and constructed heritage

Time, memory and alterity in prehistoric lithic technology: Synthesis and perspectives of the French technogenetic approach

Values-Led Design Cards: Building Ethically Engaged Archaeology and Heritage Experiences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About