1932

Abstract

That the meanings and value of things can be transformed through their circulation was brought to the foreground of anthropological studies more than 30 years ago with the publication of (Appadurai 1986b). The last decade, however, has seen a move away from “object biographies” in favor of frameworks that better account for objects’ complex entanglements. Recent work on object itineraries extends and challenges many elements of the biography approach and represents an intersection with critical interventions regarding materiality and agency, networks and circulation, and heritage discourses. This review evaluates the legacy of in the context of anthropological studies of the material world and suggests that thinking about itineraries rather than biographies allows us to collapse the distinctions between past and present (and future) and, thus, fully consider objects’ present entanglements as central to their story.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102218-011111
2019-10-21
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/anthro/48/1/annurev-anthro-102218-011111.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102218-011111&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alberti B. 2016. Archaeologies of ontology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 45:163–79
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alberti B, Fowles S, Holbraad M, Marshall Y, Witmore C 2011. “Worlds otherwise”: archaeology, anthropology, and ontological difference. Curr. Anthropol. 52:6896–912
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Appadurai A. 1986a. Introduction: commodities and the politics of value. See Appadurai 1986b 3–63
  4. Appadurai A 1986b. The Social Life of Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  5. Artioli G 2010. Scientific Methods and Cultural Heritage: An Introduction to the Application of Materials Science to Archaeometry and Conservation Science Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  6. Barad K. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs 28:801–31
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Barad K. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  8. Bauer AA, Agbe-Davies AS. 2010. Social Archaeologies of Trade and Exchange Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press
  9. Beaudry MC, Parno TG 2013. Archaeologies of Mobility and Movement New York: Springer
  10. Benjamin W. 1968. 1955. Illuminations: Essays and Reflections H Arendt New York: Shocken
  11. Bennett J. 2005. The agency of assemblages and the North American blackout. Public Cult 17:3445–65
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bennett J. 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  13. Bille M, Hastrup F, Sørensen TF 2010. An Anthropology of Absence: Materializations of Transcendence and Loss New York: Springer
  14. Binford LR. 1981. Behavioral archaeology and the “Pompeii premise. J. Anthropol. Res. 37:195–208
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Blair EH. 2015. Glass beads and global itineraries. See Joyce & Gillespie 2015b 81–99
  16. Blanco-González A. 2014. Tracking the social lives of things: biographical insights into Bronze Age pottery in Spain. Antiquity 88:340441–55
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bourdieu P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  18. Bourdieu P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste transl. R Nice Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  19. Braudel F. 1972. 1949. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II 2 vols., transl. S Reynolds London: Collins
  20. Bray F. 2013. Gender and technology. Women, Science, and Technology: A Reader in Feminist Science Studies M Wyer, M Barbercheck, D Cookmeyer, HÖ Öztürk, M Wayne 370–84 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Bray TL. 2012. Ritual commensality between human and non-human persons: investigating native ontologies in the Late Pre-Columbian Andean world. Between Feasts and Daily Meals: Towards an Archaeology of Commensal Spaces S Pollock. eTopoi (Spec. Vol.) 2197–212
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Brown B. 2003. A Sense of Things: The Object Matter of American Literature Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  23. Brown B. 2015. Other Things Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  24. Callon M. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay. Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? J Law 196–233 London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Chapman JC. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, Places and Broken Objects in the Prehistory of South-Eastern Europe London: Routledge
  26. Chapman J, Gaydarska B. 2007. Parts and Wholes: Fragmentation in Prehistoric Context Oxford, UK: Oxbow
  27. Childe VG. 1951. 1936. Man Makes Himself New York: Penguin
  28. Clifford J. 1997. Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  29. Coole D, Frost S 2010. New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  30. Crossland Z, Bauer A. 2017. Im/materialities: things and signs. Semiot. Rev. 2017:4 https://semioticreview.com/ojs/index.php/sr/article/view/9
    [Google Scholar]
  31. DeBoer W. 1990. Interaction, imitation, and communication as expressed in style: the Ucayali experience. The Uses of Style in Archaeology MW Conkey, CA Hastorf 82–104 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Deetz J. 1977. In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life Garden City, NY: Anchor
  33. Deleuze G, Guattari F. 1987. 1980. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia transl. B Massumi Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
  34. Dietler M, Herbich I. 1998. Habitus, techniques, style: an integrated approach to the social understanding of material culture and boundaries. See Stark 1998 232–63
  35. Dobres M-A. 1995. Gender and prehistoric technology: on the social agency of technical strategies. World Archaeol 27:125–49
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Dobres M-A. 1999. Technology's links and chaînes: the processual unfolding of technique and technician. The Social Dynamics of Technology: Practice, Politics, and Worldviews MA Dobres, CR Hoffman 124–45 Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Dobres M-A. 2000. Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology Oxford, UK: Blackwell
  38. Dobres M-A, Robb JE 2000. Agency in Archaeology London: Routledge
  39. Dobres M-A, Robb JE. 2005. “Doing agency”: introductory remarks on methodology. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 12:159–66
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Dornan JL. 2002. Agency and archaeology: past, present, and future directions. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 9:303–29
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Douglas M, Isherwood B. 1979. The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption London: Allen Lane
  42. Eco U. 1986. Travels in Hyperreality New York: Harcourt
  43. Faulkner W. 1951. Requiem for a Nun New York: Random House
  44. Flannery KV. 1967. Cultural history versus cultural process: a debate in American archaeology. Sci. Am. 217:2119–27
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Fontijn DR. 2002. Sacrificial Landscapes: Cultural Biographies of Persons, Objects and ‘Natural’ Places in the Bronze Age of the Southern Netherlands, c. 2300–600BC Analecta Praehist. Leiden. 33/34 Leiden, Neth: Facult. Archaeol., Univ. Leiden
  46. Fowler C. 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood: An Anthropological Approach London: Routledge
  47. Fowles S. 2010. People without things. See Bille et al. 2010 23–41
  48. Funari PP. 2006. The World Archaeological Congress from a critical and personal perspective. Archaeologies 2:173–79
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Gell A. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  50. Gibson JJ. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception Boston: Houghton Mifflin
  51. Giddens A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  52. Gillespie SD. 2015. Journey's end (?): the travels of La Venta Offering 4. See Joyce & Gillespie 2015b 39–62
  53. Glassie H. 1969. Pattern in the Material Folk Culture of the Eastern United States Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
  54. Gosden C. 2001. Making sense: archaeology and aesthetics. World Archaeol 33:163–67
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Gosden C. 2005. What do objects want. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 12:3193–211
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Gosden C. 2006. Material culture and long-term change. See Tilley et al. 2006 425–42
  57. Gosden C, Marshall Y. 1999. The cultural biography of objects. World Archaeol 31:2169–78
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Hahn HP, Weiss H 2013. Mobility, Meaning and Transformations of Things: Shifting Contexts of Material Culture Through Time and Space Oxford, UK: Oxbow
  59. Hamilakis Y. 1999. Stories from exile: fragments from the cultural biography of the Parthenon (or ‘Elgin’) marbles. World Archaeol 31:2303–20
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Handler R. 2003. Cultural property and culture theory. J. Soc. Archaeol. 3:353–65
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Haraway D. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature New York: Routledge
  62. Harding A. 2016. Introduction: biographies of things. Distant Worlds J 2016:1 https://doi.org/10.11588/dwj.2016.1.30158
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  63. Harrison-Buck E, Hendon JA 2018. Relational Identities and Other-Than-Human-Agency in Archaeology Louisville: Univ. Colo. Press
  64. Hegmon M. 1992. Archaeological research on style. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 21:517–36
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Hegmon M. 1998. Technology, style, and social practices: archaeological approaches. See Stark 1998 264–79
  66. Heidegger M. 1971. The thing. Poetry, Language, Thought transl. A Hofstadter 163–80 New York: Harper & Row
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Henderson J. 2000. The Science and Archaeology of Materials: An Investigation of Inorganic Materials London: Routledge
  68. Hicks D. 2004. Historical archaeology and the British. Camb. Archaeol. J. 14:1101–6
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Hodder I. 1985. Boundaries as strategies: an ethnoarchaeological study. The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries SW Green, SM Perlman 141–59 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Hodder I. 1989. Writing archaeology: site reports in context. Antiquity 63:268–74
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Hodder I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe Oxford, UK: Blackwell
  72. Hodder I. 1992. Material practice, symbolism and ideology. Theory and Practice in Archaeology I Hodder 201–12 London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Hodder I. 2011. Human-thing entanglement: towards an integrated archaeological perspective. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 17:154–77
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Hodder I. 2012. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relations Between Humans and Things Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell
  75. Hodder I. 2014. The entanglements of humans and things: a long-term view. New Lit. Hist. 45:119–36
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Hodder I, Mol A. 2016. Network analysis and entanglement. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 23:11066–94
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Hollin G, Forsyth I, Giraud E, Potts T 2017. (Dis)entangling Barad: materialisms and ethics. Soc. Stud. Sci. 47:6918–41
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Holtorf CJ. 1998. The life-histories of megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany). World Archaeol 30:123–38
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Holtorf CJ. 2002. Notes on the life history of a pot sherd. J. Mater. Cult. 7:149–71
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Hoskins J. 1998. Biographical Objects: How Things Tell the Stories of People's Lives London: Routledge
  81. Hoskins J. 2006. Agency, biography and objects. See Tilley et al. 2006 74–84
  82. Hutson SR. 2010. Dwelling, Identity, and the Maya: Relational Archaeology at Chunchucmil Lanham, MD: Altamira
  83. Ingold T. 1992. Culture and the perception of the environment. Bush Base: Forest Farm. Culture, Environment and Development E Croll, D Parkin 39–56 London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Ingold T. 1993. The art of translation in a continuous world. Beyond Boundaries: Understanding, Translation and Anthropological Discourse G Pálsson 210–30 Oxford, UK: Berg
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Ingold T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill London: Routledge
  86. Ingold T. 2007a. Lines: A Brief History London: Routledge
  87. Ingold T. 2007b. Materials against materiality. Archaeol. Dialogues 14:11–16
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Ingold T. 2008. When ANT meets SPIDER: social theory for arthropods. See Knappett & Malafouris 2008 209–15
  89. Ingold T. 2010. Bringing things to life: creative entanglements in a world of materials Natl. Cent. Res. Methods (NCRM) Work. Pap. Ser. 05/10, Morgan Cent., Univ. Manch. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/1306/
  90. Ingold T. 2011. Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge, and Description London: Routledge
  91. Joy J. 2009. Reinvigorating object biography: reproducing the drama of object lives. World Archaeol 41:4540–56
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Joyce RA. 2012a. From place to place: provenience, provenance, and archaeology. Provenance: An Alternate History of Art G Feigenbaum, I Reist 48–60 Los Angeles: Getty Res. Inst.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Joyce RA. 2012b. Life with things: archaeology and materiality. Archaeology and Anthropology: Past, Present and Future D Shankland 119–32 Oxford, UK: Berg
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Joyce RA. 2015. Things in motion: itineraries of Ulua marble vases. See Joyce & Gillespie 2015b 21–38
  95. Joyce RA, Gillespie SD. 2015a. Making things out of objects that move. See Joyce & Gillespie 2015b 3–19
  96. Joyce RA, Gillespie SD 2015b. Things in Motion: Object Itineraries in Anthropological Practice Santa Fe, NM: Sch. Adv. Res. Press
  97. Joyce RA, Lopiparo J. 2005. PostScript: doing agency in archaeology. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 12:365–74
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Keane W. 2003. Semiotics and the social analysis of material things. Lang. Commun. 23:409–25
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Keane W. 2005. Signs are not the garb of meaning: on the social analysis of material things. Materiality: Politics, History, and Culture D Miller 182–205 Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Keane W. 2018a. A minimalist ontology, with other people in it. HAU 8:1/245–47
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Keane W. 2018b. Perspectives on affordances, or the anthropologically real: The 2018 Daryll Forde Lecture. HAU 8:1/227–38
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Knappett C. 2002. Photographs, skeuomorphs and marionettes: some thoughts on mind, agency and object. J. Mater. Cult. 7:197–117
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Knappett C. 2004. The affordances of things: a post-Gibsonian perspective on the relationality of mind and matter. Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World E DeMarrais, C Gosden, C Renfrew 43–51 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Knappett C. 2005. Thinking Through Material Culture: An Interdisciplinary Perspective Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
  105. Knappett C. 2008. The neglected networks of material agency: artefacts, pictures and texts. See Knappett & Malafouris 2008 139–56
  106. Knappett C. 2011. An Archaeology of Interaction: Network Perspectives on Material Culture and Society Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  107. Knappett C. 2012. Meaning in miniature: semiotic networks in material culture. Excavating the Mind: Cross-Sections Through Culture, Cognition, and Materiality N Johansen, M Jessen, HJ Jensen 87–109 Aarhus, Den: Aarhus Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Knappett C. 2013a. Imprints as punctuations of material itineraries. See Hahn & Weiss 2013 37–49
  109. Knappett C 2013b. Network Analysis in Archaeology: New Approaches to Regional Interaction Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  110. Knappett C, Malafouris L 2008. Material Agency: Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach New York: Springer
  111. Kopytoff I. 1986. The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. See Appadurai 1986b 64–91
  112. Küchler S. 2003. Imaging the body politic: the knot in Pacific imagination. Homme 165:205–22
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Latour B. 1988. The Pasteurization of France transl. A Sheridan, J Law Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  114. Latour B. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern transl. C Porter London: Harvester
  115. Latour B. 1996. On actor-network theory: a few clarifications. Soz. Welt 47:4369–81
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Latour B. 1999. Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  117. Latour B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  118. Law J. 1986. On the methods of long distance control: vessels, navigation and the Portuguese route to India. Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? J Law 234–63 London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Leacock E. 1978. Women's status in egalitarian society: implications for social evolution. Curr. Anthropol. 19:247–75
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Leary J 2014. Past Mobilities: Archaeological Approaches to Movement and Mobility Farnham, UK: Ashgate
  121. Lechtman H. 1977. Style in technology—some early thoughts. Material Culture: Styles, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology H Lechtman, RS Merrill 3–20 St. Paul, MN: West
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Lemonnier P. 1976. La description des chaînesopératiores: contribution à l'analyse des systèmes techniques. Tech. Cult. 1:100–51
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Lemonnier P. 1992. Elements for an Anthropology of Technology Anthropol. Pap. Mus. Anthropol. 88 Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
  124. Lemonnier P 1993. Technological Choices: Transformations in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic London: Routledge
  125. Lemonnier P. 1996. Et pourtant ça vole! L'ethnologie des techniques et les objets industrials. Ethnol. Fr. 26:117–31
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Leroi-Gourhan A. 1964 (1993). Le geste et la parole I and II transl AB Berger Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  127. Little BJ, Shackel PA 2007. Archaeology as a Tool of Civic Engagement Lanham, MD: Altamira
  128. Lucas G. 2001. Destruction and the rhetoric of excavation. Nor. Archaeol. Rev. 34:35–46
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Lucas G. 2012. Understanding the Archaeological Record New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  130. Lydon J, Rizvi UZ 2010. Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast
  131. MacKenzie MA 1991. Androgynous Objects Amsterdam: Harwood Acad.
  132. Malafouris L. 2008. Is it ‘me’ or is it ‘mine’? The Mycenaean sword as a body-part. Past Bodies J Robb, D Boric 115–23 Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Malinowski B. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific London: Routledge
  134. Marshall Y. 2002. What is community archaeology. World Archaeol 34:2211–19
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Marshall Y. 2008. The social lives of lived and inscribed objects: a Lapita perspective. J. Polyn. Soc. 117:159–101
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Marshall Y, Alberti B. 2014. A matter of difference: Karen Barad, ontology and archaeological bodies. Camb. Archaeol. J. 24:119–36
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Mauss M. 1954. 1924. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies transl. I Cunnison Glencoe, IL: Free Press
  138. Meskell L. 2004. Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt: Material Biographies Past and Present Oxford, UK: Berg
  139. Meskell L 2005. Archaeologies of Materiality Oxford, UK: Blackwell
  140. Miller D. 1987. Material Culture and Mass Consumption Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell
  141. Mills BJ. 2017. Social network analysis in archaeology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 46:379–97
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Munn ND. 1983. Gawan kula: spatiotemporal control and the symbolism of influence. The Kula: New Perspectives in Massim Exchange JW Leach, E Leach 277–308 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Munn ND. 1986. The Fame of Gawa: A Symbolic Study of Value Transformation in a Massim (Papua New Guinea) Society Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  144. Olsen B. 2003. Material culture after text: re-membering things. Nor. Archaeol. Rev. 36:87–104
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Olsen B. 2010. In Defense of Things: Archaeology and the Ontology of Objects Lanham, MD: Altamira
  146. Preucel RW. 2012. Archaeology and the limitations of actor network theory Paper presented to the Department of Anthropology Harvard University Cambridge, MA: Oct. 10. https://www.academia.edu/10272554/
  147. Preucel RW, Mrozowski SA 2010. Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: The New Pragmatism Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
  148. Pyburn KA. 2003. Archaeology for a new millennium: the rules of engagement. Archaeologists and Local Communities: Partners in Exploring the Past L Derry, M Molloy 167–79 Washington, DC: Soc. Am. Archaeol.
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Roddick AA. 2015. Geologies in motion itineraries of stone, clay, and pots in the Lake Titicaca Basin. See Joyce & Gillespie 2015b 123–46
  150. Sackett JR. 1982. Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 1:59–112
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Schiffer MB. 1976. Behavioral Archaeology New York: Academic
  152. Schiffer MB. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record Albuquerque: Univ. N. M. Press
  153. Schiffer MB 2001. Anthropological Perspectives on Technology Amerind Found. New World Stud. Ser. 5 Albuquerque: Univ. N. M. Press
  154. Shanks M. 2007. Symmetrical archaeology. World Archaeol 39:4589–96
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Shanks M, Tilley C. 1987. Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  156. Simmel G. 1978. The Philosophy of Money London: Routledge
  157. Skeates R. 1995. Animate objects: a biography of prehistoric ‘axe-amulets’ in the central Mediterranean region. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 61:279–301
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Smith L. 2006. Uses of Heritage London: Routledge
  159. Sørensen TF. 2013. We have never been Latourian: archaeological ethics and the posthuman condition. Nor. Archaeol. Rev. 46:11–18
    [Google Scholar]
  160. Stark MT 1998. The Archaeology of Social Boundaries Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press
  161. Strathern M. 1984. Subject or object? Women and the circulation of valuables in Highlands New Guinea. Women and Property—Women as Property R Hirschon 158–75 London: Croom Helm
    [Google Scholar]
  162. Strathern M. 1988. The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  163. Tambiah SJ. 1984. The Buddhist Saints of the Forest and the Cults of Amulets: A Study in Charisma, Hagiography, Sectarianism and Millennial Buddhism New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  164. Thomas N. 1991. Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  165. Tilley C, Keane W, Küchler S, Rowlands M, Spyer P 2006. Handbook of Material Culture London: Sage
  166. Ucko P. 1987. Academic Freedom and Apartheid: The Story of the World Archaeological Congress London: Duckworth
  167. Union Station 2016. Union Station announces historic North American tour of Pompeii: The Exhibition. Press Release, Sept. 7. https://www.unionstation.org/news/union-station-announces-historic-north-american-tour-pompeii-exhibition
  168. Van Dyke RM 2015. Practicing Materiality Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
  169. Vandiver P. 2001. The role of materials research in ceramics and archaeology. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 31:1373–85
    [Google Scholar]
  170. Viveiros de Castro E. 2004. Exchanging perspectives: the transformation of objects into subjects in Amerindian cosmologies. Common Knowl 10:3463–84
    [Google Scholar]
  171. Vygotsky LS. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  172. Wallerstein I. 1974. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century New York: Academic
  173. Watts C. 2007. From purification to mediation: overcoming artifactual ‘otherness’ with and in actor-network theory. J. Iber. Archaeol. 2007(9/10) 39–54
    [Google Scholar]
  174. Watts C 2013. Relational Archaeologies: Humans, Animals, Things London: Routledge
  175. Webmoor T, Witmore CL. 2008. Things are us! A commentary on human/things relations under the banner of a ‘social’ archaeology. Nor. Archaeol. Rev. 41:53–70
    [Google Scholar]
  176. Weiner S. 2010. Microarchaeology: Beyond the Visible Archaeological Record Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  177. Weissner P. 1983. Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. Am. Antiq. 48:253–76
    [Google Scholar]
  178. Witmore CL. 2004. On multiple fields. Between the material world and media: two cases from the Peloponnesus, Greece. Archaeol. Dialogues 11:2133–64
    [Google Scholar]
  179. Witmore CL. 2007. Symmetrical archaeology: excerpts of a manifesto. World Archaeol 39:4546–62
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102218-011111
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error