Post-modernism has brought about changing demands with respect to time in work organisations. Whilst the impact of this has been given some attention at both the organisational and individual level far less has been given to a consideration of the extent to which individual differences might moderate the impact of such changes. In order to proceed with this line of enquiry it is necessary first to be able to measure individual differences related to time. This paper, through an analysis and synthesis of existing measures of individual attitudes/approaches to time, a subsequent qualitative study, and large quantitative survey study (N=683) identifies a five factor structure for time-related individual differences (Time Personality) and reports on the development of five complementary measurement scales : Leisure Time Awareness, Punctuality, Planning, Polychronicity and Impatience. A series of reliability and validity studies indicate that the scales are psychometrically sound. The findings are discussed in the context of the role Time Personality might play in moderating the effects that differing organisational structures and changing work demands might have in organisational settings.

A biographical note

1. Phrasing the problem 2. The nature and expression of ethnicity: an anthropological view 3. The discursive dimension of ethnic identity 4. Ethnography and genealogy: an Argolic case-study 5. Ethnicity and archaeology 6. Ethnicity and linguistics 7. Conclusion.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0959774300001864

Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity

Community archaeology, understood as a distinctive set of practices within the wider discipline, is a relatively new development. Its most important distinguishing characteristic is the relinquishing of at least partial control of a project to the local community. This introduction takes a preliminary look at where this kind of archaeology is being carried out around the world and outlines what marks it out as different from other kinds of archaeology. In conclusion, it is suggested that community archaeology has a unique, if not critical, contribution to make to the future development of archaeology as a genuinely worldwide discipline.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/827909.pdf

What is community archaeology

Precursors suitable for chemical vapour deposition, especially ALD, of hafnium oxide or zirconium oxide, have the general formula (I): (R1Cp)2MR2 R3 wherein Cp represents a cyclopentadienyl ligand, R1 is H or a substituting alkyl group, alkoxy group or amido group of the Cp ligand, R2 and R3 is an alkyl group, an alkoxy group or an amido group and M is hafnium or zirconium.

Cyclopentadienyl type hafnium and zirconium precursors and use thereof in atomic layer deposition

A clear deficit in the theoretical and methodological development of archaeological research exists with regard to migration; attributing archaeological distribution patterns to migration as opposed to diffusion or trade is still a major problem. This article uses the example of North American colonization to develop an approach that distinguishes the changes brought about by migration from those produced by other forms of cultural transfer. Because methods for gathering evidence do not sufficiently explore migration processes in their complexity, a model based on the study of historic and modern migrations is developed, and its practicability is demonstrated using the example of Anglo‐Saxon migration.

Archaeology and Migration

Recent research on both old and new excavation data from Anglo‐Saxon burial sites reveals a widespread and frequent practice of reusing monuments of earlier periods. Both Roman and prehistoric structures provided the focus of cemeteries, burial groups and single graves between the late fifth and early eighth centuries AD. It is argued that this practice was central to the symbolism of Anglo‐Saxon mortuary practices, and was important for the construction and negotiation of origin myths, identities and social structures.

Monuments and the past in early Anglo‐Saxon England

How were the dead remembered in early medieval Britain? Originally published in 2006, this innovative study demonstrates how perceptions of the past and the dead, and hence social identities, were constructed through mortuary practices and commemoration between c. 400–1100 AD. Drawing on archaeological evidence from across Britain, including archaeological discoveries, Howard Williams presents a fresh interpretation of the significance of portable artefacts, the body, structures, monuments and landscapes in early medieval mortuary practices. He argues that materials and spaces were used in ritual performances that served as 'technologies of remembrance', practices that created shared 'social' memories intended to link past, present and future. Through the deployment of material culture, early medieval societies were therefore selectively remembering and forgetting their ancestors and their history. Throwing light on an important aspect of medieval society, this book is essential reading for archaeologists and historians with an interest in the early medieval period.

/pdf/death-and-memory-in-early-medieval-britain-2n7goo62za.pdf

Death and Memory in Early Medieval Britain

It is argued that recent archaeological theories of death and burial have tended to overlook the social and mnemonic agency of the dead body. Drawing upon anthropological, ethnographic and forensic analogies for the effects of fire on the human body, together with Gell’s theory of the agency of inanimate objects, the article explores the cremation rites of early Anglo-Saxon England. As a case study in the archaeological study of the mnemonic agency of bodies and bones it is suggested that cremation and postcremation rites in the 5th and 6th centuries AD in eastern England operated as technologies of remembrance. Cremation encouraged distinctive forms of engagement with the physicality and materiality of the dead. It is argued that cremated bodies and ashes need to be theorized as more than osteological data, artefacts or symbolic resources, but as holding material agency influencing the selective remembering and forgetting of the deceased’s personhood.

Death warmed up: the agency of bodies and bones in early Anglo-Saxon cremation rites

THE MANY HUNDREDS of known early medieval cemeteries dated between the late 5th and early 8th centuries A.D. from southern and eastern England have largely been studied in terms of artefacts and human remains. The reuse of prehistoric and Roman structures by these burial sites has received much less attention and discussion. It is suggested that the landscape context of early Anglo-Saxon burial rites provides considerable evidence for the social and ideological significance of the dead in early Anglo-Saxon society.

Ancient Landscapes and the Dead: The Reuse of Prehistoric and Roman Monuments as Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Sites

Does community archaeology work? In the UK over the last decade, there has been a boom in projects utilising the popular phrase ‘community archaeology’. These projects can take many different forms and have ranged from the public face of research and developer-funded programmes to projects run by museums, archaeological units, universities, and archaeological societies. Community archaeology also encapsulates those projects run by communities themselves or in dialogue between ‘professional’ and ‘amateur’ groups and individuals. Many of these projects are driven by a desire for archaeology to meet a range of perceived educational and social values in bringing about knowledge and awareness of the past in the present. These are often claimed as successful outputs of community projects. This paper argues that appropriate criteria and methodologies for evaluating the effi cacy of these projects have yet to be designed. What is community archaeology for? Who is it for? And is it effectively meeting its targets? Focusing on the authors’ experiences of directing community archaeology projects, together with the ongoing research assessing the effi cacy of community archaeology projects in the UK, this paper aims to set out two possible methodologies: one of self-refl exivity, and one of ethnoarchaeological analysis for evaluating what community archaeology actually does for communities themselves.

/pdf/evaluating-community-archaeology-in-the-uk-3kbeznikgp.pdf

Howard Williams

Papers

Monuments and the past in early Anglo‐Saxon England

Death and Memory in Early Medieval Britain

Death warmed up: the agency of bodies and bones in early Anglo-Saxon cremation rites

Ancient Landscapes and the Dead: The Reuse of Prehistoric and Roman Monuments as Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Sites

Evaluating Community Archaeology in the UK