Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:28:24.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taking the Wrong Turn? Re-examining the Potential for Practice Approaches in Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2021

Andrew Gardner Open the ORCID record for Andrew Gardner [Opens in a new window]
Andrew Gardner*
Affiliation:
University College London Institute of Archaeology 31–34 Gordon Square LondonWC1H 0PYUK Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Is the ‘material’ or ‘ontological’ turn a major new paradigm in archaeological theory? Or is it another iteration of the cycle of piecemeal innovation which has created a very fragmented discipline? While there are insights from recent scholarship in this vein which are certainly important, this paper will err toward the latter view. Even though ‘symmetrical’ and other object-agency approaches are still growing in mainstream archaeological debate, much of the source literature upon which they draw has been around for several decades, and accumulated a fair amount of critique. At the very least, therefore, we need to learn from the way the materiality debate is playing out in other sub-fields. Beyond that, I will argue, we should go back to the turn before this one—the practice turn—and explore that road a bit more thoroughly, if we are to find the most useful approaches to develop in the future.

Type
Special Section: Debating Posthumanism in Archaeology
Information
Cambridge Archaeological Journal , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , August 2021 , pp. 503 - 508
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research

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

Agbe-Davies, A.S., 2018. Laboring under an illusion: aligning method and theory in the archaeology of plantation slavery. Historical Archaeology 52, 125–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, R.A., Lipo, C., Maschner, H.D.G. & Marler, B., 2008. Darwinian archaeologies, in Handbook of Archaeological Theories, eds Bentley, R.A., Maschner, H.D.G. & Chippindale, C.. Walnut Creek (CA): AltaMira, 109–32.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1981. Behavioural archaeology and the ‘Pompeii premise’. Journal of Anthropological Research 37, 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloor, D., 1999. Anti-Latour. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 30(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caraher, W., 2019. Slow archaeology, punk archaeology, and the ‘archaeology of care’. European Journal of Archaeology 22(3), 372–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1973. Archaeology: the loss of innocence. Antiquity 47, 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dant, T., 1999. Material Culture in the Social World. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Dornan, J.L., 2002. Agency and archaeology: past, present, and future directions. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9, 303–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, R.G., 1997. Self, identity and difference: Mead and the postructuralists. Sociological Quarterly 38(4), 687–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elam, M., 1999. Living dangerously with Bruno Latour in a hybrid world. Theory, Culture & Society 16(4), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, M. & Mische, A., 1998. What is agency? American Journal of Sociology 103(4), 962–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Götz, M., Maschek, D. & Roymans, N., 2020. The dark side of the empire: Roman expansionism between object agency and predatory regime. Antiquity 94, 1630–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fewster, K., 2014. On practice, in The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Theory, eds Gardner, A., Lake, M. & Sommer, U.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199567942.013.022Google Scholar
Flannery, K.V. 1982. The golden Marshalltown: a parable for the archaeology of the 1980s. American Anthropologist 84, 265–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaffney, C.F. & Gaffney, V.L. (eds), 1987. Pragmatic Archaeology: Theory in crisis? (BAR British series 167.) Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, A., 2003. Seeking a material turn: the artefactuality of the Roman empire, in TRAC 2002: Proceedings of the 12th Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, eds Carr, G., Swift, E. & Weekes, J.. Oxford: Oxbow, 1–13.Google Scholar
Gardner, A., 2011. Action and structure in interpretive archaeologies, in Evolutionary and Interpretive Archaeologies. A dialogue, eds Cochrane, E. & Gardner, A.. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press, 63–82.Google Scholar
Gardner, A., 2012. Time and empire in the Roman world. Journal of Social Archaeology 12(2), 145–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, A., 2016. Debating Roman imperialism: critique, construct, repeat?, in TRAC 2015: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, eds Mandich, M.J., Derrick, T.J., Gonzalez Sanchez, S., Savani, G. & Zampieri, E.. Oxford: Oxbow, 1–14.Google Scholar
Gardner, A., 2017a. Brexit, boundaries, and imperial identities – a comparative view. Journal of Social Archaeology 17(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, A., 2017b. Roman Britain from the outside: comparing western and northern frontier cultures, in ‘Romans’ and ‘Barbarians’ Beyond the Frontiers: Archaeology, ideology and identities in the North, eds González Sánchez, S. & Guglielmi, A.. Oxford: Oxbow, 34–47.Google Scholar
Hegmon, M., 2003. Setting theoretical egos aside: issues and theory in North American archaeology. American Antiquity 68, 213–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I., 1985. Post-processual archaeology, in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8, ed. Schiffer, M.. New York (NY): Academic Press, 1–26.Google Scholar
Johnson, M., 2006. On the nature of theoretical archaeology and archaeological theory. Archaeological Dialogues 13(2), 117–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M., 2020. Archaeological Theory: An introduction (3rd edn). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jones, M.P., 1996. Posthuman agency: between theoretical traditions. Sociological Theory 14(3), 290–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, R.A. & Lopiparo, J., 2005. Postscript: doing agency in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(4), 365–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, K., 2014. Towards a new paradigm? The third science revolution and its possible consequences in archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology 22, 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, K.G., Martinez, A. & Schiff, A.M., 1998. Daily practice and material culture in pluralistic social settings: an archaeological study of culture change and persistence from Fort Ross, California. American Antiquity 63(2), 199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindstrøm, T.C., 2015. Agency ‘in itself’. A discussion of inanimate, animal and human agency. Archaeological Dialogues 22(2), 207–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, G., 2015. The mobility of theory. Current Swedish Archaeology 23, 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthewman, S., 2011. Technology and Social Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, E.D., 1984. Towards a sociology of the physical world: George Herbert Mead on physical objects. Studies in Symbolic Interaction 5, 105–21.Google Scholar
McDavid, C., 2000. Archaeology as cultural critique: pragmatism and the archaeology of a southern United States plantation, with a comment by L. Daniel Mouer, in Philosophy and Archaeological Practice: Perspectives for the 21st century, eds Holtorf, C. & Karlsson, H.. Göteborg: Bricoleur Press, 221–39.Google Scholar
Mead, G.H., [1932]2002. The Philosophy of the Present. Amherst (MA): Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Mizoguchi, K., 2015. A future of archaeology. Antiquity 89, 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolini, D., 2012. Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nilsson Stutz, L., 2018. A future for archaeology: in defense of an intellectually engaged, collaborative and confident archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review 51(1/2), 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, M.J., Lyman, R.L. & Schiffer, M.B., 2005. Archaeology as a Process: Processualism and its progeny. Salt Lake City (UT): University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., Shanks, M., Webmoor, T. & Witmore, C., 2012. Archaeology: The discipline of things. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W.J., 2000. Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science 11(4), 404–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preda, A., 1999. The turn to things: arguments for a sociological theory of things. Sociological Quarterly 40(2), 347–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preucel, R.W. & Mrozowski, S.A., 2010. The new pragmatism, in Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: the new pragmatism, eds Preucel, R.W. & Mrozowski, S.A.. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 3–49.Google Scholar
Reckwitz, A., 2002. Toward a theory of social practices: a development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory 5(2), 243–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, A., 2016. Against object agency. A counterreaction to Sorensen's ‘Hammers and nails’. Archaeological Dialogues 23(2), 229–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, A., 2018. Death of the passive subject: intentional action and narrative explanation in archaeological studies. History of the Human Sciences 31(3), 105–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenzweig, M.S., 2020. Confronting the present: archaeology in 2019. American Anthropologist 122(2), 284–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saitta, D.J., 2003. Archaeology and the problems of men, in Essential Tensions in Archaeological Method and Theory, eds VanPool, T.L. & VanPool, C.S.. Salt Lake City (UT): University of Utah Press, 11–15.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T.R., 2006. Introduction: practice theory, in The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, eds Schatzki, T.R., Knorr Cetina, K. & von Savigny, E.. London: Routledge, 1–14.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T., 2010. Materiality and social life. Nature and Culture 5(2), 123–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, M.B., 1985. Is there a ‘Pompeii premise’ in archaeology? Journal of Anthropological Research 41, 18–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shalin, D.N., 2000. George Herbert Mead, in The Blackwell Companion to Major Social Theorists, ed. Ritzer, G.. Oxford: Blackwell, 302–44.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., 2008. Post-processual archaeology and after, in Handbook of Archaeological Theories, eds Bentley, R.A., Maschner, H.D.G. & Chippindale, C.. Walnut Creek (CA): AltaMira, 133–44.Google Scholar
Simpson, B., 2009. Pragmatism, Mead and the practice turn. Organization Studies 30, 1329–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dyke, R.M., 2015. Materiality in practice: an introduction, in Practicing Materiality, ed. Van Dyke, R.M.. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona Press, 3–32.Google Scholar
Vandenberghe, F., 2002. Reconstructing humants: a humanist critique of Actant-Network Theory. Theory, Culture & Society 19(5/6), 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, R.E.M., 1954. Archaeology from the Earth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
White, H., 2013. Materiality, form, and context: Marx contra Latour. Victorian Studies 55(4), 667–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar