Transit, Transition: Excavating J641 VUJ

Bailey, Greg; Newland, Cassie; Nilsson, Agneta; Schofield, John; Davis, Steve; Myers, Adrian

doi:10.1017/s0959774309000018

Cited by 24 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…O controverso projeto "Van" (Bailey et al, 2009) (confira outras discussões em Harrison & Schofield [2010:157-163]) é um bom caso para examinar. Tal projeto envolve a "escavação" de um furgão tipo van de 1991, modelo Ford Transit, por um grupo de arqueólogos em Bristol.…”

Section: Sobre a Relação Entre Arqueologias "Contemporâneas" E "Históunclassified

Arqueologias de futuros e presentes emergentes

Harrison

Petry

2019

Vestigios

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este artigo traça a genealogia do subcampo que ficou conhecido como “arqueologia do passado contemporâneo” e argumenta por sua maior integração com o campo expandido da arqueologia histórica. Um dos desafios centrais da arqueologia nas próximas décadas será encontrar um modo de se engajar com fenômenos emergentes, contemporâneos e sócio materiais e, consequentemente, com questões – tanto contemporâneas quanto futuras – de interesse ecológico, social, político e econômico. Partindo do quadro de um novo projeto de pesquisa interdisciplinar, colaborativo e internacional – Futuros do Patrimônio – que procura compreender os processos material-discursivos do patrimônio e de outros campos similares como formas distintivas de práticas de construção de futuros (future-assembling) através da aplicação de um conjunto de métodos arqueológicos etnográficos, o artigo conclui que o potencial para um campo expandido da arqueologia histórica reside na sua habilidade de engajar-se com futuros emergentes através de arqueologias etnográficas que estejam sintonizadas com aspectos sociomateriais dessas (e de outras) práticas de construção de futuros (future-assembling).

show abstract

Section: Sobre a Relação Entre Arqueologias "Contemporâneas" E "Históunclassified

Arqueologias de futuros e presentes emergentes

Harrison

Petry

2019

Vestigios

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rather, each constitutes the other. That is why Stonehenge is an archaeological object, pace Nativ, and why that Ford Transit van (Bailey et al 2009) is also an archaeological object -even if (indeed precisely because) fifty years ago it would not have been considered as such. I think it is frankly dangerous to try and define the object of archaeology without simultaneously defining the practice of archaeology.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Archaeology is process

Harris¹

2018

Arch. Dial.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assaf Nativ has written an interesting and, I think, important paper. It raises critical issues around the ontological status of ‘the archaeological’ and indeed about the purpose and aims of archaeology as a discipline. These are clearly topics that require consideration and critical analysis. His arguments are provocative, in the best sense, in that they will lead us to reflect on some of the basic foundations of what we believe archaeology to be. Such consideration is certainly necessary to disciplinary health. That said, and after some hefty reflection of my own, I have concluded that I disagree with much of the paper's argument. In the space afforded to me I aim to set out why.

show abstract

“…Though a relatively small number of these films are made, they specifically investigate the interdisciplinary space between art and archaeology, emphasizing that 'through this hybrid space, sensibilities from art and archaeology have the potential to inform each other in ways that not only broaden our range of expression but also push our practical and theoretical practice in new and exciting directions' (Witmore, 2005: 57, see also Bailey, et al, 2009). …”

Section: Impressionisticmentioning

confidence: 99%

Archaeology and the Moving Image

Morgan¹

2014

Public Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Archaeological filmmaking is a relatively under-examined subject in academic literature. As the technology for creating, editing, and distributing video becomes increasingly available, it is important to understand the broader context of archaeological filmmaking; from television documentaries to footage shot as an additional method of recording to the informal 'home videos' in archaeology. The history of filmmaking in archaeology follows innovations within archaeological practice as well as the availability and affordability of technology. While there have been extensive analyses of movies and television shows about archaeological subjects, the topic of archaeological film has been characterized by reactions to these outside perspectives, rather than examinations of footage created by archaeologists. This can be understood to fall within several filmic genres, including expository, direct testimonial, impressionistic, and phenomenological films, each with their own purpose and expressive qualities. Footage taken on site can also be perceived as a form of surveillance, and can modify behaviour as a form of panopticon. Consequently, there are considerations regarding audience, distribution, and methods for evaluation, as these films are increasingly available on social media platforms. This paper explores the broad context for archaeological filmmaking and considers potential futures for the moving image in archaeology.keywords archaeological film, video, history of film in archaeology, social media, digital archaeology

show abstract

Transit, Transition: Excavating J641 VUJ

Cited by 24 publications

References 19 publications

Arqueologias de futuros e presentes emergentes

Arqueologias de futuros e presentes emergentes

Archaeology is process

Archaeology and the Moving Image

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About