Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T23:03:39.936Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2022

John C. Barrett
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , December 2022 , pp. 132 - 137
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

I am very grateful to all who have provided comments on this paper and for the problems that they have raised. These problems arise from my attempt to employ a Peircean ‘semeiotic’ in pursuit of a social archaeology (Preucel 2006; Crossland and Bauer 2017), for while Saussure provides us with the idea that things can stand for something else, and can thus operate semiotically, Peirce proposed that things (signs) must determine their meanings to an ‘interpretant’. If we were to treat archaeological things as material expressions, which could be variously interpreted as concepts, and if the meanings of those things were clear to some, then they will have been clear (have been recognized) by a community of interpretants (Peirce Reference Peirce1878; Preucel Reference Preucel2006, 50–66). It was the various communities who lived amongst those things, and it was these communities that I take to have comprised a social community. To have been social at any time was to have been recognized by others, which was to have been seen, and to have behaved appropriately, within those material conditions, the residues of which the archaeologist records today. Our problem is, of course, that the social community is now extinct. Thus, while things may once have been ‘meaningfully constituted’, they may also have been variously and differently interpreted by those who lived amongst them, and this would have implications for the kind of social existences that things could have sustained. I therefore doubt the adequacy of simply assuming that the pattern of things records a single social structure, simply because the structuring of social life (i.e. the historical process) arises from the ways that different communities have related to each other. I have argued that social communities recognized others within those same communities by the ways that they behaved amongst things, and I wonder the extent to which things might have enabled the differentiation between communities within a single social structure. As examples of this, the orientation of roundhouses that were backed away from the roadways through certain hillforts might reflect an Iron Age concern with the privacy of the domestic space from the gaze of others (Barrett et al., Reference Barrett, Freeman and Woodward2000, 320), and the routines of agricultural production and the preparation and consumption of foods may have increasingly differentiated between engendered social statuses (cf., Goody Reference Goody1976).

References

Alberti, B., 2016: Archaeologies of ontology, Annual Review of Anthropology 45, 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102215-095858 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, G., Barrett, J.C. and Lewis, J.S.C., 2000: Interpretation not record. The practice of archaeology, Antiquity, 74(285), 525–530. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00059871 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atalay, S 2014: Engaging Archaeology. Positivism, objectivity, and rigour in activist archaeology, in Atalay, S., Clauss, L.R. and McGuire, R.H. (eds.), Transforming Archaeology. Activist practices and prospects, Walnut Creek, 45–60.Google Scholar
Barad, K., 2003: Posthumanist performativity. Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter, Signs 28(3), 801–831. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/345321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barad, K., 2007: Meeting the universe halfway. Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 1988. Fields of discourse. Reconstituting a social archaeology, Critique of Anthropology 7(3), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 1994. Fragments from antiquity, Oxford.Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 2014: The material constitution of humanness, Archaeological Dialogues 21(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203814000105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 2021: Archaeology and its discontents. Why archaeology matters, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J.C., and Boyd, M.J., 2019: From Stonehenge to Mycenae. The challenges of archaeological interpretation, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J.C., in press: Towards an archaeology of ‘Social life’, in Kienlin, T.L. and Bußmann, R. (eds.), Sozialität – Materialität – Praxis/Sociality – Materiality – Practice. Cologne contributions to archaeology and cultural studies, Bonn.Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C., Freeman, P.W.M and Woodward, A., 2000: Cadbury Castle, Somerset. The later prehistoric and early historic archaeology, London.Google Scholar
Bennett, J., 2010: Vibrant Matter. A political ecology of things, Durham NC.Google Scholar
Berggren, Å., 2001. Swedish archaeology in the perspective and the possibility of reflexivity, Current Swedish Archaeology 9, 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berggren, Å., and Hodder, I., 2003: Social practice, method, and some problems of field archaeology, American Antiquity 68, 421. https://doi.org/10.2307/3557102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berggren, Å., and Nilsson Stutz, L., 2010: From spectator to critic and participant. A new role for archaeology in ritual studies, Journal of Social Archaeology 10(2), 171–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605310365039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L.R., 1962: Archaeology as anthropology, American Antiquity 28(2), 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L.R., 1981: Behavioral archaeology and the “Pompei premise”, Journal of Anthropological Research 37(3), 198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bintliff, J., 2011: The death of archaeological theory? in Bintliff, J. and Pearce, M. (eds.), The death of archaeological theory?, Oxford, 6–22.Google Scholar
Boyd, M., Campbell, R., Doonan, R.C.P., Douglas, C., Gavalas, G., Gkouma, M., Halley, C., Hartzler, B., Herbst, J.A., Indgjerd, H.R., Krijnen, A., Legaki, I., Margaritis, E., Meyer, N., Moutafi, I., Iliou, N.P., Wylie, D.A. and Renfrew, C., 2021: Open area, open data. Advances in reflexive archaeological practice, Journal of Field Archaeology 46(2), 62–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2020.1859780 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, L., 2014: Onto-cartoraphy. An ontology of machines and media, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, J.C., 1988: Performative acts and gender constitution. An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory, Theatre Journal 40(4), 519–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carver, M., 2009: Archaeological investigation, London.Google Scholar
Catapoti, D., and Relaki, M., 2021: ‘Fields of discourse’ revisited. A Simondonian perspective, in Boyd, M.J. and Doonan, R.C.P. (eds.), Far from equilibrium. An archaeology of energy, life and humanity, Oxford, 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childe, V.G., 1951: Social evolution, London.Google Scholar
Childe, V.G., 1956: Piecing together the past, London.Google Scholar
Crellin, R., 2020: Change and archaeology, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossland, Z., 2014. Encounters with ancestors in Highland Madagascar. Material signs and traces of the dead, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossland, Z., 2021: ‘Contextual archaeology’ revisited. Reflections on archaeology, assemblages and semiotics, in Boyd, M.J. and Doonan, R.C.P. (eds.), Far from Equilibrium. An archaeology of energy, life and humanity, Oxford, 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossland, Z., and Bauer, A., 2016: Im/materialities. Things and signs, Semiotic Review 4 (S.I.), 1–18.Google Scholar
Cullen, J., 2021: Deleuze and ethology. A philosophy of entangled life, London.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B., 1984b: Iron Age Wessex. Continuity and change, in Cunliffe, B. and Miles, D., (eds.), Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain, Oxford, 12–45.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B., 1984a: Danebury. An Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire, volumes 1 and 2, London.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B., 1995: Danebury. An Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire, volume 6 (a hillfort community in perspective), London.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B., 2000: The Danebury Environs Programme. The prehistory of a Wessex landscape, volume 1, Oxford.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B., and Poole, C., 1991: Danebury. An Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire, volumes 4 and 5, London.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B., and Poole, C., 2000: The Danebury Environs Programme. The prehistory of a Wessex landscape, volume 2 (7 parts), Oxford.Google Scholar
Darwin, C., 2009 (1859): On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life, London, (edited by W. Bynum).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, J., (ed.), 2013: Making senses of the past. Toward a Sensory Archaeology, Carbondale, IL: Center for Archaeological Investigation, Southern Illinois University. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1993.9980235 Google Scholar
Downes, J., 1997: The shrine at Cadbury Castle. Belief enshrined?, in Gwilt, A. and Haselgrove, C. (eds.), Reconstructing Iron Age societies, Oxford, 145–152.Google Scholar
Driessen, J., 2002: ‘The king must die’. Some observations on the use of Minoan court compounds, in Driessen, J., Schoep, I. and Laffineur, R. (eds.), Monuments of Minos. Rethinking the Minoan places, Liège, 1–14.Google Scholar
Dupré, J., 2012: Processes of life. Essays in the philosophy of biology, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duwe, S, and Preucel, R. (eds.), 2019: The continuous path. Pueblo movement and the archaeology of becoming, Tucson.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagleton, T., 1990: The significance of theory. The Bucknell lectures in literary theory, Oxford.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, M., 2012: Follow the cut, follow the rhythm, follow the material. Norwegian Archaeological Review 45(1), 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, T.J., Koyiyumptewa, S.B. and Hopkins, M.P., 2015: Co-creation of knowledge by the Hopi Tribe and archaeologists, Advances in Archaeological Practice 3(3), 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, R., 1995: The limits of settlement growth. A theoretical outline, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Foley, D., 2003: Indigenous epistemology and standpoint theory, Social Alternatives 22(1), 44–52.Google Scholar
Fried, M., 1967: The evolution of political society. An essay in political anthropology, New York.Google Scholar
Garcia-Rovira, I., 2015: What about us? On archaeological objects (or the objects of archaeology), Current Swedish Archaeology 23, 85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, C., 2021: ‘Ode to a treethrow’ and other reflexive thoughts. Multivocal engagements at Heathrow airport, in Boyd, M.J. and Doonan, R.C.P. (eds.), Far from equilibrium. An archaeology of energy, life and humanity, Oxford, 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilman, A., 1991: Trajectories towards social complexity in the later prehistory of the Mediterranean, in Earle, T. (ed.), Chiefdoms. Power, economy and ideology, Cambridge, 146–168.Google Scholar
Goody, J., 1976: Production and reproduction. A comparative study of the domestic domain, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Govier, E., and Steel, L., 2021: Beyond the thingification of worlds. New materialisms for the archaeologist, Journal of Material Culture 26(3), 298–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govier, E., (2022): Pre-critical archaeology. Second wave symmetrical archaeology and speculative realism, Archaeological Dialogues 29 (2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govier, E., 2017: Creative practice. How communities were “made” at Çatalhöyük. Thesis (PhD). University of Wales.Google Scholar
Govier, E., 2019: Bodies that co-create. The residues and intimacies of vital materials, in: Attala, L. and Steel, L. (eds.), Body matters exploring the materiality of the human body, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 19–38.Google Scholar
Govier, E., 2020: Power and all its guises. Environmental determinism and locating the ‘Crux of the Matter’, Archaeological Dialogues 27(2), 173–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graeber, D., and Wengrow, D., 2021: The Dawn of everything. A new history of humanity, Dublin.Google Scholar
Grant, A., 2002: Scales of reference. Archaeozoological approaches to the study of behaviours and change, in Dobney, K. and O’Connor, T. (eds.), Bones and the Man. Studies in honour of Don Brothwell, 78–87, Oxford.Google Scholar
Graves-Brown, P., 2014: Internet, in Smith, C. (ed.), Encyclopedia of global archaeology, New York, 4002–4006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosz, E., 1994: Volatile bodies. Toward a corporeal feminism, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Grosz, E., 2017: The Incorporeal. Ontology, Ethics, and the Limits of Materialism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Hamilakis, Y., 2011: Archaeologies of the senses, in: Insoll, T. (ed.), The Oxford handbook on the archaeology of ritual and religion, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 208–225.Google Scholar
Hamilakis, Y., 2021: From fields of discourse to fields of sensoriality. Rethinking the archaeological record, in Boyd, M.J. and Doonan, R.C.P. (eds.), Far from equilibrium. An archaeology of energy, life and humanity, Oxford, 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilakis, Y., and Jones, A.M., 2017: Archaeology and assemblage, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27, 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774316000688 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, G., 2018: Object-oriented ontology. A new theory of everything, London: Penguin Random House.Google Scholar
Harrison, R., and Schofield, J., 2010: After modernity. Archaeological approaches to the contemporary past, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1962: Being and time, London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M, 1978: Basic writings, London: Routledge, Kegan and Paul.Google Scholar
Hillerdal, C., Karlström, A. and Ojala, C-G. (eds), 2017: Archaeologies of ‘us’ and ‘them’. Debating history, heritage and indigeneity, London.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 1992: Theory and practice in archaeology, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., (ed.) 1982: Symbolic and structural archaeology, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I., 1999: The archaeological process. An introduction, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 2012: Entangled. An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmeyer, J., 2008: Biosemiotics. An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs, Scranton, IL (Translated by Hoffmeyer, J. & Favareau, D.).Google Scholar
Holbraad, M., 2009: Ontology, ethnography, archaeology. An afterword on the ontography of things, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19, 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774309000614 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoopes, J., 1991: Peirce on signs. Writings on semiotic by Charles Sanders Peirce, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Huggett, J., 2020: Is big digital data different? Towards a new archaeological paradigm Journal of Field Archaeology 45(Sup.1), s8–s17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2020.1713281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T., 1993: The temporality of landscape, World Archaeology 25(2), 152–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T., 2000: The perception of the environment. Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill, London.Google Scholar
Inomata, T., 2006: Plazas, performers and spectators. Political theaters of the Classic Maya, Current Anthropology 47(5), 805–842. https://doi.org/10.1086/506279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, B., 2019: Assemblage thought and archaeology, London.Google Scholar
Kapp, E., 1877 (2015): Grundlinien einer Philosophie der Technik. Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Kultur aus neuen Gesichtspunkten, Hamburg: Meier Felix Verlag GmbH.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, V., 1997: Telling flesh. The substance of the corporeal, London.Google Scholar
Ko, I., 2021: Towards an ‘archaeology of the conditions of possibility’, in Boyd, M.J. and Doonan, R.C.P. (eds.), Far from equilibrium. An archaeology of energy, life and humanity, Oxford, 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kockelman, P., 2012: Agent, person, subject, self. A theory of ontology, interaction and infrastructure, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohn, E., 2013: How forests think. Toward an anthropology beyond the human, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Kryder-Reid, E., Foutz, J., Wood, E. and Zimmerman, L., 2017: ‘I just don’t ever use that word’. Investigating stakeholders’ understanding of heritage, International Journal of Heritage Studies https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1339110.Google Scholar
Law, J., 2004: After method. Mess in social science research, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, G., 2012: Understanding the archaeological record, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malafouris, L., 2013: How things shape the mind. A theory of material engagement, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Y., and Alberti, B., 2014: A matter of difference. Karen Barad, ontology and archaeological bodies, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 24, 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774314000067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadyen, L., 2006: Building technologies, quick architecture and early Neolithic long barrow sites in southern Britain, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 21(1), 117–134.Google Scholar
McFadyen, L., 2008: Temporary spaces in the Mesolithic and Neolithic, in Pollard, J. (ed.), Prehistoric Britain, Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 121–134.Google Scholar
McFadyen, L., 2013: Designing with living. A contextual archaeology of dependent architecture, in Alberti, A., Jones, A.M. and J. Pollard (eds.), Archaeology after interpretation. Returning materials to archaeological theory, Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
McFadyen, L., 2016: Actions in time. After the breakage of pottery and before the construction of walls at the site of Castelo Velho de Freixo de Numão. Estudos do Quaternário/Quaternary Studies 15, 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinn, C., 2015: Prehension. The hand and the emergence of humanity, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D., and Tilley, C. (eds.), 1984: Ideology, power and prehistory, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D., 2005: The sacred gaze. Religious visual culture in theory and practice, Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moro, C., 2016: To encounter, to build the world and to become a human being. Advocating for a material-cultural turn in developmental psychology, Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Sciences 50, 586–602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicholas, G.P., and Andrews, T.D., 1997: Indigenous archaeology in the modern world, in Nicholas, G. P. and Andrews, T. D. (eds.), Archaeology at a crossroads. Archaeology and first peoples in Canada, Burnaby, 1–18.Google Scholar
Nilsson Stutz, L., 2003: Embodied rituals and ritualized bodies. Tracing ritual practices in Late Mesolithic Burials. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell Intl.Google Scholar
Noble, W., and Davidson, I., 1996: Human evolution, language and mind. A psychological and archaeological inquiry, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., 2003: Material culture after text. Re-membering things, Norwegian Archaeological Review 36(2), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293650310000650 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., 2010: In defense of things, Lanham: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., and Witmore, C., 2015: Archaeology, symmetry, and the ontology of things. A response to critics, Archaeological Dialogues 22(2), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203815000240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., Shanks, M., Webmoor, T. and Witmore, C., 2012: Archaeology. The discipline of things, Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Outram, A.K., and Bogaard, A., 2019: Subsistence and society in prehistor. New directions in economic archaeology, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, T., 1984: Danebury, an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire. An aerial photographic interpretation of its environs, London.Google Scholar
Patrik, L., 1985: Is there an archaeological record? Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8, 27–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S., 1991: Peirce on signs, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, C.S., 1878. How to make our ideas clear, Popular Science Monthly 12, 286–302.Google Scholar
Pollard, P., Smith, C., Willika, J., Copley, V., Wilson, C., Poelina-Hunter, E. and Ah Quee, J., 2021: Indigenous views on the future of public archaeology in Australia, Online Journal in Archaeology 10, 31–52. Available at: http://revistas.jasarqueologia.es/index.php/APJournal/article/view/293/256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porr, M, 2018: Country and relational ontology in the Kimberley, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 28, 3, 395–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porr, M., and Matthews, J., 2016: Thinking through story. Archaeology and narratives. Hunter Gatherer Research 2(3), 249–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preucel, R.W., 2006: Archaeological semiotics, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preucel, R.W., 2016: Pragmatic archaeology and semiotic mediation, Semiotic Review 4 (SI), Available at: https://www.semioticreview.com/ojs/index.php/sr/article/view/11 (accessed 25 May 2021).Google Scholar
Ralph, J., and Smith, C. 2014: ‘We’ve got better things to do than worry about whitefella politics’. Contemporary Indigenous graffiti and recent government interventions in Jawoyn Country, Australian Archaeology 78, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redman, C.L., Berman, M.J., Curtin, E.V., W.T. Langhorne, Jr., N.M. Versaggi and J.C. Wanser (eds.), 1978: Social archaeology. Beyond subsistence and dating, New York.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1984: Approaches to social archaeology, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1973: Social archaeology. An inaugural lecture, Southampton.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., and Bahn, P., 2004: Archaeology. Theories, methods and practice, London. (4th edition.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., Rowlands, M.J. and Segraves, B.A., (eds.), 1982: Theory and explanation in archaeology. The Southampton Conference, London.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, A., 2019: Archaeology and the new metaphysical dogmas. Comments on ontologies and reality, Forum Kritische Archäologie 8, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.6105/journal.fka.2019.8.2.Google Scholar
Roosevelt, C.H., Cobb, P., Moss, E., Olson, B.R. and Ünlüsoy, S., 2015: Excavation is destruction digitization. Advances in archaeological practice, Journal of Field Archaeology 40(3), 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1179/2042458215Y.0000000004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roskams, S., 2001: Excavation, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rovelli, C., 2021: Helgoland, London.Google Scholar
Saussure, F., 1916 (1998): Course in general linguistics, Chicago, Illinois: Open Court.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B., 1976: Behavioral archaeology, London.Google Scholar
Schoep, I., 2021: Fragments from Minoan Crete. Social practice at the EM IIA-MM IB (2650-1875 BCE) court building at Knossos, in M.J. Boyd and R.C.P. Doonan, (eds.), Far from equilibrium. An archaeology of energy, life and humanity, Oxford, 131–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schutz, A., and Luckmann, T., 1973: The structures of the life-world, volume 1, Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Schutz, A., and Luckmann, T. 1983: The structures of the life-world, volume 2, Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Service, E.R., 1971: Primitive social organization. An evolutionary perspective, New York. (2nd edition)Google Scholar
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C., 1987: Social theory and archaeology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sharples, N., 2010: Social relations in later prehistory. Wessex in the first millennium BC, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C., 2017: The social and political sculpting of archaeology globally (and vice versa), Pyrenae 48(1), 7–44.Google Scholar
Smith, C., and Wobst, H.M. (eds.), 2005: Indigenous archaeologies. Decolonising theory and practice, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C., Ralph, J., Pollard, K. and de Leiuen, C., 2022: Social justice. Material culture as a driver of inequality, in de Cunzo, L.A. and Dann Roebers, C. (eds.), Handbook of material culture studies, Cambridge, 100–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C., V. Copley, Sr., and Jackson, G. 2018: Intellectual soup. On the reformulation and repatriation of Indigenous knowledge, in Apaydin, V. (ed.), Shared knowledge, shared power. Local and Indigenous heritage, New York, 1–28.Google Scholar
Soar, K., 2014: Sects and the city. Factional ideologies in representations of performance from Bronze Age Crete, World Archaeology 46(2), 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2014.885850 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Society for American Archaeology (SAA), 2022: What is Archaeology? Available at: https://www.saa.org/about-archaeology/what-is-archaeology (accessed 7 August, 2022).Google Scholar
Soja, E.W., 1989: Postmodern geographies. The reassertion of space in critical social theory, London.Google Scholar
Stopford, J., 1987: Danebury. An alternative view, Scottish Archaeological Review 4(2), 70–75.Google Scholar
Supernant, K, Baxter, J. E., Lyons, N. and Atalay, S. (eds.), 2020: Archaeologies of the heart, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Székely, T., Moore, A.J. and Komdeur, J., 2010: Social behaviour. Genes, ecology and evolution, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J., 1993: The hermeneutics of megalithic space, in C. Tilley (ed.), Interpretative archaeology, Oxford, 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J., 2009: On the ocularcentrism of archaeology, in J. Thomas and V. Jorge (eds.), Archaeology and the politics of vision in a post-modern context, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar’s Press, 1–12.Google Scholar
Thompson, E., 2007: Mind in life. Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Tilley, C., 1990. Reading material culture. Structuralism, hermeneutics and post-structuralism, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tomkins, P., 2012: Behind the horizon. Reconsidering the genesis and ‘first palace’ at Knossos (final Neolithic IV-Middle Minoan IB), in I. Scheop, P. Tomkins and J. Driessen, (eds.), Back to the beginning. Reassessing social and political complexity on Crete during the early and middle Bronze Age, Oxford, 32–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsoraki, C., Barton, H., Crellin, R.J. and Harris, O.J.T., 2021: Making marks meaningful. New materialism and the microwear assemblage, World Archaeology. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2021.1898462 Google Scholar
Turner, E., 2012: Communitas. The anthropology of joy, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Uexküll, J., von, 1957: A stroll through the worlds of animals and men. A picture book of invisible worlds, in C.H. Schiller, (ed.), Instinctive behavior. The development of a modern concept, New York.Google Scholar
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) 2003: What is intangible cultural heritage? Available at: https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-00003 (accessed 7 August 2022).Google Scholar
Venkatesan, S., (ed.), 2010: Ontology is just another word for culture. Motion tabled at the 2008 meeting of the group for debates in anthropological theory, University of Manchester, Critique of Anthropology 30(2), 152–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X09364070 Google Scholar
Webmoor, T., and Witmore, C.L., 2008: Things are us! A commentary on human/things relations under the banner of a ‘social’ archaeology, Norwegian Archaeological Review 41(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293650701698423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendrich, W., (ed.), 2013: Archaeology and apprenticeship. Body knowledge, identity, and communities of practice. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Wenger, E., 1998: Communities of practice. Learning, meaning, and identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C. L., 2007: Symmetrical archaeology. Excerpts of a manifesto, World Archaeology 39(4), 546–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C.L., 2014: Archaeology and the new materialisms, Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 1(2), 203–246. https://doi.org/10.1558/jca.v1i2.16661 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittengstein, L., 1958: Philosophical investigations, Oxford.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L., 1922 (2001): Tractatus logico-philosophicus, London: Routledge.Google Scholar