Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:33:38.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a post-colonial artefact analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2013

Astrid Van Oyen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues that material culture should be brought even more to the forefront in post-colonial archaeology. At present, post-colonial analyses start from a baseline of pinned-down, delineated things as processed through artefact analysis, to proceed to interpretations of how these things were used in fluid, multidirectional, ambivalent social and cultural interactions. But what if things themselves can be fluid rather than bounded? Can we look into the various ways in which things were defined in the past, and the various relations they enabled? Such a change of perspective can also help redress the imbalance within post-colonial studies between, on the one hand, consumption as the field in which meaning is negotiated and, on the other hand, production as offering merely a template for the inscription of that meaning. A case study of so-called pre-sigillata production in southern Gaul articulates the benefit to be gained from considering these issues.

Keywords

material culture studiespost-colonial theoryterra sigillatascience and technology studiesreflexivityRoman Gaul
Type
Articles
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , June 2013 , pp. 81 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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, J., Barrett, J.C. and Lewis, J.S.C., 2000: Interpretation not record. The practice of archaeology, Antiquity 74, 525–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bang, P., 2008: The Roman bazaar. A comparative study of trade and markets in a tributary empire, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bats, M., 1988: Vaisselle et alimentation à Olbia de Provence (v. 350–v. 50 av. J.-C.). Modèles culturels et catégories céramiques, Paris (Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise, Supplément 18).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bémont, C., 1990: Sigillées de type italique et imitations de sigillée, in Duval, A., Morel, J.-P. and Roman, Y. (eds), Gaule interne et Gaule méditerranéenne aux IIe et Ier siècles avant J.-C. Confrontations chronologiques, Paris, 73–88.Google Scholar
Bémont, C., and Jacob, J.-P. (eds), 1986: La terre sigillée gallo-romaine. Lieux de production du Haut-Empire. Implantations, produits, relations, Paris (Documents d'archéologie française 6).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bénabou, M., 1976: La résistance africaine à la romanisation, Paris.Google Scholar
Bénévent, C., Dausse, L. and Picon, M., 2002: A propos des présigillées du nord de l'Aveyron. Observations sur la nature des argiles utilisées pour leur fabrication et pour celle des céramiques sigillées, in Genin, M. and Vernhet, A. (eds), Céramiques de la Graufesenque et autres productions d’époque romaine. Nouvelles recherches. Hommages à Bettina Hoffmann, Montagnac (Archéologie et histoire romaine 7), 165–70.Google Scholar
Bhabha, H., 1994: The location of culture, London.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R., 1983: In pursuit of the past. Decoding the archaeological record, London.Google Scholar
Cibecchini, F., and Principal, J., 2004: Per chi suona la Campana B?, in De Sena, E. and Dessales, H. (eds), Metodi e approcci archeologici. L'industria e il commercio nell'Italia antica, Oxford (BAR International Series 1262), 159–72.Google Scholar
Clarke, D.L., 1968: Analytical archaeology, London.Google Scholar
Cuomo di Caprio, N., 2007: La ceramica in archeologia, 2. Antiche tecniche di lavorazione e moderni metodi di indagine, Rome.Google Scholar
Dannell, G.B., 2002: Law and practice. Further thoughts on the organization of the potteries at la Graufesenque, in Genin, M. and Vernhet, A. (eds), Céramiques de la Graufesenque et autres productions d’époque romaine. Nouvelles recherches. Hommages à Bettina Hoffmann, Montagnac (Archéologie et histoire romaine 7), 211–42.Google Scholar
Desbat, A., 2001: L'artisanat céramique à Lyon durant l’époque romaine, Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 37, 17–35.Google Scholar
Dietler, M., 1997: The Iron Age in Mediterranean France. Colonial encounters, entanglements and transformations, Journal of world prehistory 11, 269–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietler, M., 2010: Archaeologies of colonialism. Consumption, entanglement, and violence in ancient Mediterranean France, Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobres, M.-A., 2000: Technology and social agency. Outlining a practice framework for archaeology, Oxford.Google Scholar
Ettlinger, E. (ed.), 1990: Conspectus Formarum Terrae Sigillatae Italico Modo Confectae, Bonn.Google Scholar
Garcia, D., 2004: La Celtique méditerranéenne. Habitats et sociétés en Languedoc et en Provence VIIIe–IIe siècles av. J.-C., Paris.Google Scholar
Gayraud, M., 1981: Narbonne antique des origines à la fin du IIIe siècle, Paris (Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise, Supplément 8).Google Scholar
Gero, J., 1996: Archaeological practice and gendered encounters with field data, in Wright, R. (ed.), Gender and archaeology, Philadelphia, 251–80.Google Scholar
Gero, J., 2007: Honoring ambiguity/problematizing certitude, Journal of archaeological method and theory 14, 311–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J.J., 1979: The ecological approach to visual perception, Boston.Google Scholar
Gosden, C., 2004: Archaeology and colonialism. Cultural contact from 5000 BC to the present, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gosden, C., 2007: The past and foreign countries. Colonial and post-colonial archaeology and anthropology, in Meskell, L. and Preucel, R.W. (eds), A companion to social archaeology, Oxford, 161–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goudineau, C., 1968: La céramique arétine lisse. Fouilles de l'Ecole Française de Rome à Bolsena (Poggio Moscino) 1962–1967, Paris (Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire, Supplément 6).Google Scholar
Goudineau, C., 1978: La Gaule transalpine, in Nicolet, C. (ed.), Rome et la conquête du monde méditerranéen, Vol. 2, Genèse d'un empire, Paris, 679–99.Google Scholar
Goudineau, C., 1996: Gaul, in Bowman, A.K., Champlin, E. and Lintott, A. (eds), The Cambridge ancient history, Vol. 10, The Augustan empire, 43 BC–AD 69, Cambridge, 462–95.Google Scholar
Harding, J., 2005: Rethinking the great divide. Long-term structural history and the temporality of the event, Norwegian archaeological review 38, 88–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, G., 2009: Prince of networks. Bruno Latour and metaphysics, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Hassan, F.A., 1997: Beyond the surface. Comments on Hodder's ‘reflexive excavation methodology’, Antiquity 71, 1020–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henare, A., Holbraad, M. and Wastell, S., 2007: Introduction. Thinking through things, inHenare, A., Holbraad, M. and Wastell, S. (eds), Thinking through things. Theorizing artefacts ethnographically, Oxford, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I., 1982: Symbols in action. Ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 1997: ‘Always momentary, fluid and flexible’. Towards a reflexive excavation methodology, Antiquity 71, 691–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I., 2000: Towards reflexive method in archaeology. The example of Çatalhöyük, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 2011: Human–thing entanglement. Towards an integrated archaeological perspective, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 17, 154–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, B., 1995: A propos des relations entre les sigillées de La Graufesenque et les sigillées d'Italie, Annali della scuola normale superiore di Pisa. Classe di lettere e filosofia 25 (1–2), 389–402.Google Scholar
Holbraad, M., 2007: The power of powder. Multiplicity and motion in the divinatory cosmology of Cuban Ifà (or mana, again), in Henare, A., Holbraad, M. and Wastell, S. (eds), Thinking through things. Theorizing artefacts ethnographically, Oxford, 189–225.Google Scholar
Holbraad, M., 2009: Ontology, ethnography, archaeology. An afterword on the ontography of things, Cambridge archaeological journal 19 (3), 431–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T., 2000: The perception of the environment. Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill, London.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 2007: Materials against materiality, Archaeological dialogues 14 (1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T., 2008: When ANT meets SPIDER. Social theory for arthropods, in Knappett, C. and Malafouris, L. (eds), Material agency. Towards a non-anthropocentric approach, New York, 209–15.Google Scholar
Jiménez, A., 2010: Reproducing difference. Mimesis and colonialism in Roman Hispania, in van Dommelen, P. and Knapp, A.B. (eds), Material connections in the ancient Mediterranean. Mobility, materiality and identity, Oxford, 38–63.Google Scholar
Kenrick, P., 1997: Cn. Ateius. The inside story, Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 35, 179–90.Google Scholar
Knappett, C., 2005: Thinking through material culture. An interdisciplinary perspective, Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohring, S., Odriozola, C.P. and Hurtado, V.M., 2007: Materialising ‘complex’ social relationships. Technology, production and consumption in a Copper Age community, in Kohring, S. and Wynne-Jones, S. (eds), Socialising complexity. Structure, interaction and power in archaeological discourse, Oxford, 100–17.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1993: We have never been modern, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1999: Pandora's hope. Essays on the reality of science studies, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 2005: Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network theory, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, J., 2004: After method. Mess in social science research, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, J., and Singleton, V., 2005: Object lessons, Organization 12 (3), 331–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemonnier, P., 1993: Introduction, in Lemonnier, P. (ed.), Technological choices. Transformation in material cultures since the Neolithic, London, 1–35.Google Scholar
Maetzke, G., 1996: Arezzo romana. Sviluppo della città ed attività produttive. La fornace di Ateius. Dal ritrovamento degli scarichi alla ricomposizione dei reperti decorati, Annali della scuola normale superiore di Pisa. Classe di lettere e filosofia 25 (1–2), 277–84.Google Scholar
Martin, T., 2005a: L'approvisionnement en vaisselle fine de Burdigala sous Auguste. Premiers enseignements de la fouille du cours du Chapeau-Rouge, in Sillières, P. (ed.), L'Aquitaine et l'Hispanie septentrionale à l’époque julio-claudienne. Organisation et exploitation des espaces provinciaux. Colloque Aquitania, Saintes, 11–13 septembre 2003, Bordeaux (Aquitania, Supplément 13), 231–34.Google Scholar
Martin, T., 2005b: Présigillées languedociennes de Narbonne et de Bram à Bordeaux. L'apport des fouilles récentes, SFECAG Actes du congrès de Blois, 427–46.Google Scholar
Mauné, S., and Sanchez, C., 1999: Une production de céramique à vernis noir dans la région de Béziers (Hérault) entre la fin du IIe s. et le milieu du Ier s. av. J.-C. Emprunt indigène ou présence italienne précoce?, Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise 32, 125–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D., 1985: Artefacts as categories. A study of ceramic variability in central India, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mol, A., 1999: Ontological politics. A word and some questions, in Law, J. and Hassard, J. (eds), Actor network theory and after, Oxford, 74–89.Google Scholar
Mol, A., 2002: The body multiple. Ontology in medical practice, Durham, NC and London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mol, A., and Law, J., 1994: Regions, networks and fluids. Anaemia and social topology, Social studies of science 24, 641–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mol, A., and Law, J., 2005: Guest editorial. Boundary variations. An introduction, Environment and planning D. Society and space 23, 637–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morel, J.-P., 1978: A propos des céramiques campaniennes de France et d'Espagne, Archéologie en Languedoc 1, 149–68.Google Scholar
North, D.C., 2005: Understanding the process of economic change, Princeton and Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passelac, M., 1986a: Les ateliers du sud de la France. Les premiers ateliers, in Bémont, C. and Jacob, J.-P. (eds), La terre sigillée gallo-romaine. Lieux de production du Haut-Empire. Implantations, produits, relations, Paris (Documents d'archéologie française 6), 35–38.Google Scholar
Passelac, M., 1986b: Bram, in Bémont, C. and Jacob, J.-P. (eds), La terre sigillée gallo-romaine. Lieux de production du Haut-Empire. Implantations, produits, relations, Paris (Documents d'archéologie française 6), 48–51.Google Scholar
Passelac, M., 1992: Formes et techniques italiques dans les productions céramiques augustéennes du bassin de l'Aude. Mise en évidence d'un groupe d'ateliers, Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 31–32, 207–29.Google Scholar
Passelac, M., 1996a: Céramiques communes gallo-romaines en Languedoc occidental. Exemples de production et de consommation (fin Ier s. av. notre ère-IIe s. de notre ère), in Bats, M. (ed.), Les céramiques communes de Campanie et de Narbonnaise (Ier s. av. J.-C.–IIe s. ap. J.-C.). La vaisselle de cuisine et de table. Actes des journées d’étude organisées par le Centre Jean Bérard et la Soprintendenza Archeologica per le Province di Napoli e Caserta, Naples, 27–28 mai 1994, Naples (Collection Jean Bérard 14), 361–87.Google Scholar
Passelac, M., 1996b: Premières céramiques gallo-romaines, Dossiers de l'archéologie 215, 10–17.Google Scholar
Passelac, M., 2001: Deux fours de potiers augustéens du Vicus Eburomagus (Bram, Aude), in Laubenheimer, F. (ed.), 20 ans de recherches à Sallèles d'Aude, Paris, 143–62.Google Scholar
Passelac, M., 2007: Imitations et fabrications de céramiques fines de type italique en Languedoc occidental en Roussillon à la période tardo-républicaine et au début de l'empire, in Roca Roumens, M. and Principal, J. (eds), Les imitacions de vaixella fina importada a la Hispania Citerior (segles I aC – I dC), Tarragona (Serie documenta 6. Institut Català d'Arqueologia Clàssica), 17–45.Google Scholar
Passelac, M., 2009: La production de céramique et de matériaux en terre cuite, in Ournac, P., Passelac, M. and Rancoule, G. (eds), L'Aude. Carte archéologique de la Gaule 11/2, Paris, 106–12.Google Scholar
Passelac, M., Léon, Y. and Sciau, Ph. (2008) L'utilisation d'hématite broyée dans les revêtements de présigillées de Bram, première approche, SFECAG, Actes du congrès de L'Escala-Empúries, 567–76.Google Scholar
Passelac, M., Sabrié, R. and Sabrié, M., 1986: Centre de production de Narbonne, in Bémont, C. and Jacob, J.-P. (eds), La terre sigillée gallo-romaine. Lieux de production du Haut-Empire. Implantations, produits, relations, Paris (Documents d'archéologie française 6), 52–55.Google Scholar
Pfaffenberger, B., 1992: Social anthropology of technology, Annual review of anthropology 21, 491–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picon, M., 2002a: A propos des sigillées, présigillées et imitations des sigillées. Questions de ‘coûts’ et de marchés, SFECAG, Actes du congrès de Bayeux, 345–56.Google Scholar
Picon, M., 2002b: Les modes de cuisson, les pâtes et les vernis de la Graufesenque. Une mise au point, in Genin, M. and Vernhet, A. (eds), Céramiques de la Graufesenque et autres productions d’époque romaine. Nouvelles recherches. Hommages à Bettina Hoffmann, Montagnac (Archéologie et histoire romaine 7), 139–63.Google Scholar
Poblome, J., and Brulet, R., 2005: Production mechanisms of sigillata manufactories. When East meets West, in Berg Briese, M. and Vaag, L.E. (eds), Trade relations in the eastern Mediterranean from the late Hellenistic period to late antiquity. The ceramic evidence, Odense (Halicarnassian studies 3), 27–36.Google Scholar
Poblome, J., Talloen, P., Brulet, R. and Waelkens, M. (eds), 2004: Early Italian sigillata. The chronological framework and trade patterns. Proceedings of the First International ROCT-Congress Leuven, May 7 and 8, 1999, Leuven.Google Scholar
Principal, J., 2006: Late Hellenistic black-gloss wares in the north-eastern Iberian Peninsula. Production traditions and social practices, in Malfitana, D., Poblome, J. and Lund, J. (eds), Old pottery in a new century. Innovating perspectives on Roman pottery studies. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi. Catania, 22–24 Aprile 2004, Catania (Monografie dell’ Istituto per I Beni Archeologici e Monumentali 1), 41–56.Google Scholar
Provost, M., 2002: Les monnayages indigènes et les monnaies de la République romaine émises dans la région de Narbonne, in Dellong, E. (ed.), Carte archéologique de la Gaule. Narbonne et le Narbonnais 11/1, Paris, 79–80.Google Scholar
Py, M., 1993: Les Gaulois du Midi. De la fin de l'Age du Bronze à la conquête romaine, Paris.Google Scholar
Rancoule, G., 1970: Ateliers de potiers et céramique indigène au Ier s. av. J.-C., Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise 3, 33–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rancoule, G., 2001: Productions de céramique Gauloise à cuisson réductrice. Les ateliers de La Lagaste (Pomas et Rouffiac d'Aude), in Laubenheimer, F. (ed.), 20 ans de recherches à Sallèles d'Aude, Paris, 135–42.Google Scholar
Rice, P.M., 1984: Change and conservatism in pottery-producing systems, in van der Leeuw, S.E. and Pritchard, A.C. (eds), The many dimensions of pottery. Ceramics in archaeology and anthropology, Amsterdam, 231–93.Google Scholar
Ross, D.E., 2012: Transnational artefacts. Grappling with fluid material origins and identities in archaeological interpretations of culture change, Journal of anthropological archaeology 31, 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabrié, M., Sabrié, R. and Ginouvez, O., 1997: Vestiges gallo-romains à Narbonne. 74, boulevard Frédéric Mistral, Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise 30, 219–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Said, E., 1978: Orientalism, London.Google Scholar
Sanchez, C., 2001: L'apport des fouilles récentes à la connaissance des présigillées de Narbonne, Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 37, 203–9.Google Scholar
Sanchez, C., 2002a: Au carrefour des influences méditerranéennes et continentales. Le rôle de Narbonne dans le commerce antique, in Dellong, E. (ed.), Carte archéologique de la Gaule. Narbonne et le Narbonnais 11/1, Paris, 117–23.Google Scholar
Sanchez, C., 2002b: De Montlaurès à la colonie romaine de Narbonne. Les siècles de transition (IIe/Ier siècles av. J.-C.), in Dellong, E. (ed.), Carte archéologique de la Gaule. Narbonne et le Narbonnais 11/1, Paris, 81–88.Google Scholar
Sanchez, C., 2007: Les céramiques d'imitations au Ier siècle av. n.è. en Languedoc. L'exemple des sites de consommation, in Roca Roumens, M. and Principal, J. (eds), Les imitacions de vaixella fina importada a la Hispania Citerior (segles I aC – I dC), Tarragona (Serie documenta 6. Institut Català d'Arqueologia Clàssica), 5–16.Google Scholar
Sanchez, C., 2009: Narbonne à l’époque tardo-républicaine. Chronologies, commerce et artisanat céramique, Montpellier (Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise, Supplément 38).Google Scholar
Scheidel, W., Morris, I. and Saller, R. (eds), 2007: The Cambridge economic history of the Greco-Roman world, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Séjalon, P., 1998: Un atelier de potiers gaulois des années 150–50 av. n. è. à Bouriège (Aude), Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise 31, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senghor, L.S., 1970: Negritude. A humanism of the twentieth century, in Senghor, L.S. (ed.), The Africa reader. Independent Africa, London, 179–92.Google Scholar
Silliman, S.W., 2001: Agency, practical politics and the archaeology of culture contact, Journal of social archaeology 1 (2), 190–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silliman, S.W., 2009: Change and continuity, practice and memory. Native American persistence in colonial New England, American antiquity 74 (2), 211–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silliman, S.W., 2010: Indigenous traces in colonial spaces. Archaeologies of ambiguity, origin, and practice, Journal of social archaeology 10 (1), 28–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sireix, C., 1994: Officines de potiers du Second Age du Fer dans le sud-ouest de la Gaule. Organisation, structures de cuisson et productions, Aquitania 12, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solier, Y., 1980: La céramique ‘campanienne’ de Ruscino, in Barruol, G. (ed.), Ruscino I. Etat des travaux et recherches en 1975, Perpignan (Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise, Supplément 7), 217–43.Google Scholar
Spivak, G.C., 1988: Can the subaltern speak?, in Nelson, C. and Grossberg, L. (eds), Marxism and the interpretation of culture, Basingstoke, 271–313.Google Scholar
Stahl, A.B., 2010: Material histories, in Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M.C. (eds), The Oxford handbook of material culture studies, Oxford, 150–72.Google Scholar
Stoler, A.L., 1989: Colonial categories. European communities and the boundaries of rule, Comparative studies in society and history 31 (1), 134–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strathern, M., 1988: The gender of the gift. Problems with women and problems with society in Melanesia, Berkeley and London (Studies in Melanesian anthropology 6).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tchernia, A., 1983: Italian wine in Gaul at the end of the Republic, in Garnsey, P., Hopkins, K. and Whittaker, C.R. (eds), Trade in the ancient economy, London, 87–104.Google Scholar
Tchernia, A., 2010: L'exportation du vin. Interprétations actuelles de l'exception gauloise, in Carlsen, J. and Lo Cascio, E. (eds), Agricoltura e scambi nell'Italia tardo-repubblicana, Bari, 91–113.Google Scholar
Thomas, N., 1991: Entangled objects. Exchange, material culture, and colonialism in the Pacific, Cambridge, MA and London.Google Scholar
Tilley, C., Keane, W., Kuechler, S., Rowlands, M. and Spyer, P. (eds), 2006: Handbook of material culture, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trigger, B.G., 2006: A history of archaeological thought, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Leeuw, S.E., 1984: Dust to dust. A transformational view of the ceramic cycle, in van der Leeuw, S.E. and Pritchard, A.C. (eds), The many dimensions of pottery. Ceramics in archaeology and anthropology, Amsterdam, 707–78.Google Scholar
Van Dommelen, P., 2002: Ambiguous matters. Colonialism and local identities in Punic Sardinia, in Lyons, C.L. and Papadopoulos, J.K. (eds), The archaeology of colonialism, Los Angeles, 121–47.Google Scholar
Van Dommelen, P., 2006: The orientalizing phenomenon. Hybridity and material culture in the western Mediterranean, in Riva, C. and Vella, N.C. (eds), Debating orientalization. Multidisciplinary approaches to change in the ancient Mediterranean, London (Monographs in Mediterranean archaeology 10), 135–52.Google Scholar
Van Dommelen, P., 2007: Beyond resistance. Roman power and local traditions in Punic Sardinia, in van Dommelen, P. and Terrenato, N. (eds), Articulating local cultures. Power and identity under the expanding Roman Republic, Portsmouth, RI (JRA Supplementary Series 63), 55–69.Google Scholar
Van Dommelen, P., 2011: Postcolonial archaeologies between discourse and practice, World archaeology 43 (1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vander Linden, M., 2007: For equalities are plural. Reassessing the social in Europe during the third millennium BC, World archaeology 39 (2), 177–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viveiros de Castro, E., 1998: Cosmological deixis and Amerindian perspectivism, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4 (3), 469–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, C.M., 1990: ‘Imitations’ and the spread of sigillata manufacture, in Ettlinger, E. (ed.), Conspectus Formarum Terrae Sigillatae Italico Modo Confectae, Bonn, 24–25.Google Scholar
Wenger, E., 1998: Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, S., 2005: Samian pottery, a resource for the study of Roman Britain and beyond. The results of the English Heritage funded Samian Project. An E-Monograph, Internet archaeology, available at http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue17/1/toc.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolf, G., 1998: Becoming Roman. The origins of provincial civilization in Gaul, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, A., 1993: A proliferation of new archaeologies. ‘Beyond objectivism and relativism’, in Yoffee, N. and Sherratt, A. (eds), Archaeological theory. Who sets the agenda?, Cambridge, 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, A., 2007: Archaeology as a feminist. Introduction, Journal of archaeological method and theory 14 (3), 209–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, R.J.C., 2001: Postcolonialism. An historical introduction, Oxford.Google Scholar