Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T18:22:54.753Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Passing: Beiläufigkeit at the Verge of Anthropocene

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2020

Þóra Pétursdóttir
Þóra Pétursdóttir*
Affiliation:
University of Oslo, Department of Archaeology, Conservation and History, Blindernveien 11, 0371Oslo, Norway Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

To begin with, I would like to express my gratitude to Susan, Reinhard, Lena, Anna and Stefan for inviting me to participate in their workshop around the puzzling theme of Beiläufigkeit in archaeology. Having worked lately with assemblages of objects that, though very much in the spotlight of media, have hitherto fallen into the blind spot of archaeology, I immediately found it inviting to think in terms of Beiläufigkeit, the incidental and the by-passed. And, to no surprise—also given the concept's reluctance to give in fully to either translation or definition—the seminar and discussions in Berlin in April 2018 turned out extremely stimulating, leaving many glitches for further speculation.

Type
Special Section
Information
Cambridge Archaeological Journal , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 164 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research 2020

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

Benjamin, W., 1999. The Arcades Project. Cambridge (MA): Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Benjamin, W., 2002. Selected Writings, Vol. 3 (1935–1938). Cambridge (MA): Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Bogost, I., 2012. Alien Phenomenology: Or what it's like to be a Thing. Minneapolis (MN): University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carney, P. & Miller, V., 2009. Vague spaces, in Strange Spaces: Explorations in mediated obscurity, eds. Jansson, A. & Lagerkvist, A.. Farnham: Ashgate, 33–56.Google Scholar
Carson, R., [1955] 2015. The Edge of the Sea. London: Unicorn Press.Google Scholar
Cresswell, T., 2011. The vagrant/vagabond: the curious career of a mobile subject, in Geographies of Mobility: Practices, spaces, subjects, eds Cresswell, T. & Merriman, P.. London: Ashgate, 239–54.Google Scholar
Demant Fredriksen, M., 2018. An Anthropology of Nothing in Particular. Winchester: Zero Books.Google Scholar
Douglas, M., 1984. Purity and Danger: An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Freud, S., [1919] 1964. The ‘uncanny’, in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XVII (1917–1919): An infantile neurosis and other works. London: Hogarth Press, 217–56.Google Scholar
Harman, G., 2016. Immaterialism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., [1927] 1962. Being and Time. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1977. The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. New York (NY): Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social: An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 2012. Love your monsters: why we must care for our technologies as we do our children. The Breakthrough, winter 2012. http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-2/love-your-monsters/ (accessed 8 June 2018).Google Scholar
Law, J. (ed.), 1991. The Sociology of Monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Le Guin, U.K., 1989. A non-euclidean view of California as a cold place to be [1982], in Dancing at the Edge of the World: Thoughts on words, women, places, ed. Le Guin, U.K.. New York (NY): Grove Press, 80–100.Google Scholar
Morton, T., 2013. Hyperobjects: Philosophy and ecology after the end of the world. Minneapolis (MN): University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Nandy, A., 1995. History's forgotten doubles. History and Theory 34, 44–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivier, L., 2011. The Dark Abyss of Time: Archaeology and memory (trans. Greenspan, A.). Lanham (MD): AltaMira.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., 2011. Halldors lastebil og jakten på tingenes mening [Halldor's truck and the search for the meaning of things]. Kunst og kultur 94(4), 180–89.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., 2013. The return of what?, in Reclaiming Archaeology: Beyond the tropes of modernity, ed. González-Ruibal, A.. London: Routledge, 289–97.Google Scholar
Pétursdóttir, Þ., 2012. Small things forgotten now included, or what else do things deserve? International Journal of Historical Archaeology 16(3), 577–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pétursdóttir, Þ., 2014. Things-out-of-hand: the aesthetics of abandonment, in Ruin Memories: Materiality, aesthetics and the archaeology of the recent past, eds. Olsen, B. and Pétursdóttir, Þ.. London: Routledge, 335–64.Google Scholar
Pétursdóttir, Þ., 2017. Climate change? archaeology and anthropocene. Archaeological Dialogues 24(2), 175–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spivak, G.C., 1988. Subaltern studies: deconstructing historiography, in Selected Subaltern Studies, eds. Guha, R. & Spivak, G.C.. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 3–32.Google Scholar
Sørensen, T.F., 2016. In praise of vagueness: uncertainty, ambiguity and archaeological methodology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 23(2), 741–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tester, K. (ed.), 1994. The Flaneur. London: Routledge.Google Scholar