Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:02:55.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scales of relevance and the importance of ambiguity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2021

Karina Croucher
Karina Croucher*
Affiliation:
School of Archaeological & Forensic Sciences, University of Bradford, UK (✉ [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Debate
Information
Antiquity , Volume 95 , Issue 382 , August 2021 , pp. 1081 - 1084
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

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

Booth, J., Croucher, K. & Bryant, E.. 2020. Dying to talk? Co-producing resources with young people to get them talking about bereavement, death and dying. Voluntary Sector Review. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080520X16014085811284Google Scholar
Büster, L. 2021. Problematic stuff: death, memory and the interpretation of cached objects. Antiquity 95: 973–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büster, L., Croucher, K., Dayes, J., Green, L. & Faull, C.. 2018. From plastered skulls to palliative care: what the past can teach us about dealing with death. Online Journal in Public Archaeology 8: 249–76. https://doi.org/10.23914/ap.v8i2.147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, H. & Croucher, K.. 2020. Assembling archaeology: teaching, practice and research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198784258.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conkey, M.W. & Gero, J.M.. 1997. Programme to practice: gender and feminism in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 411–31. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conkey, M.W. & Tringham, R.E.. 1996. Cultivating thinking/challenging authority: some experiments in feminist pedagogy in archaeology, in Wright, R.P. (ed.) Gender and archaeology: 224–50. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Croucher, K. 2017. Keeping the dead close: grief and bereavement in the treatment of skulls from the Neolithic Middle East. Mortality 23: 103–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576275.2017.1319347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croucher, K., Büster, L., Dayes, J., Green, L., Raynsford, J., Boyes, L. Comerford & Faull, C.. 2021. Archaeology and contemporary death: using the past to provoke, challenge and engage. PLoS ONE 15: e0244058. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244058Google Scholar
Evans, A.A., Croucher, K., Greene, O. & Andrew, W.. 2020. Virtual heritage for resilience building (version 1). Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3950360Google Scholar
Giles, M. 2008. Seeing red: the aesthetics of martial objects in the British and Irish Iron Age, in Garrow, D., Gosden, C. & Hill, J.D. (ed.) Rethinking Celtic art: 59–77. Oxford: Oxbow. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh1dmpg.7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, O.J.T. 2017. Assemblages and scale in archaeology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27: 127–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774316000597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, O.J.T. & Sørensen, T.F.. 2010. Rethinking emotion and material culture. Archaeological Dialogues 17: 145–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203810000206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, R. & Tringham, R.. 2007. Feminist adventures in hypertext. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14: 328–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-007-9036-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDougal, R. 2017. Ancient Mesopotamian remembrance and the family dead, in Klass, D. & Steffen, E.M. (ed.) Continuing bonds in bereavement: new directions for research and practice: 262–75. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315202396-26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson Stutz, L. 2016. The importance of ‘getting it right’: tracing anxiety in Mesolithic burial rituals, in Fleisher, J. & Norman, N. (ed.) The archaeology of anxiety: the materiality of anxiousness, worry, and fear: 21–40. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3231-3_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M.E. 2021. Why archaeology's relevance to global challenges has not been recognised. Antiquity 95: 1061–69. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarlow, S. 2000. Emotion in archaeology. Current Anthropology 41: 713–46. https://doi.org/10.1086/317404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, H. 2007. The emotive force of early medieval mortuary practices. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 22: 107–23.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1992. On ‘heavily decomposing red herrings’: scientific method in archaeology and the ladening of evidence with theory, in Embree, L. (ed.) Metaarchaeology: reflections by archaeologists and philosophers: 269–88 (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 147). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1826-2_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar