scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Book

The Archaeology of Personhood: An Anthropological Approach

20 May 2004-
TL;DR: The Archaeology of Personhood examines the characteristics that define a person as a category of being, highlights how definitions of personhood are culturally variable and explores how that variation is connected to human uses of material culture as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Bringing together a wealth of research in social and cultural anthropology, philosophy and related fields, this is the first book to address the contribution that an understanding of personhood can make to our interpretations of the past Applying an anthropological approach to detailed case studies from European prehistoric archaeology, the book explores the connection between people, animals, objects, their societies and environments and investigates the relationship that jointly produces bodies, persons, communities and artefacts. The Archaeology of Personhood examines the characteristics that define a person as a category of being, highlights how definitions of personhood are culturally variable and explores how that variation is connected to human uses of material culture.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The body as a site of lived experience, a social body, and site of embodied agency, is replacing prior static conceptions of an archaeology of the body as public, legible surface as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Under the influence of phenomenological approaches, a semiotic perspective on the body is being replaced in archaeology by analysis of the production and experience of lived bodies in the past through the juxtaposition of traces of body practices, idealized representations, and evidence of the effects of habitual gestures, postures, and consumption practices on the corporal body. On the basis of a shared assumption that social understandings of the body were created and reproduced through associations with material culture, archaeology of the body has proceeded from two theoretical positions: the body as the scene of display and the body as artifact. Today, the body as a site of lived experience, a social body, and site of embodied agency, is replacing prior static conceptions of an archaeology of the body as a public, legible surface.

287 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a systematic effort to answer the question, What are archaeology's most important scientific challenges? Starting with a crowd-sourced query directed broadly to the professional community of archaeologists, the authors augmented, prioritized, and refined the responses during a two-day workshop focused specifically on this question.
Abstract: This article represents a systematic effort to answer the question, What are archaeology’s most important scientific challenges? Starting with a crowd-sourced query directed broadly to the professional community of archaeologists, the authors augmented, prioritized, and refined the responses during a two-day workshop focused specifically on this question. The resulting 25 “grand challenges” focus on dynamic cultural processes and the operation of coupled human and natural systems. We organize these challenges into five topics: (1) emergence, communities, and complexity; (2) resilience, persistence, transformation, and collapse; (3) movement, mobility, and migration; (4) cognition, behavior, and identity; and (5) human-environment interactions. A discussion and a brief list of references accompany each question. An important goal in identifying these challenges is to inform decisions on infrastructure investments for archaeology. Our premise is that the highest priority investments should enable us to address the most important questions. Addressing many of these challenges will require both sophisticated modeling and large-scale synthetic research that are only now becoming possible. Although new archaeological fieldwork will be essential, the greatest pay off will derive from investments that provide sophisticated research access to the explosion in systematically collected archaeological data that has occurred over the last several decades.

250 citations


Cites background from "The Archaeology of Personhood: An A..."

  • ...References: Canuto and Yaeger (2000); Dietler and Herbich (1988); Fowler (2004); Inomata and Coben (2006); Jones (1996); Nielsen and Walker (2009)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A review of this challenging body of research can be found in this paper, outlining its problems and potentials and setting it within its broader disciplinary context, including the contribution of phenomenology to postprocessual debates surrounding concepts of the self, the individual, embodiment and emotion.
Abstract: In recent years the development of a phenomenological archaeology has provoked considerable discussion within the discipline, particularly within British prehistory. This paper provides a review of this challenging body of research, outlining its problems and potentials and setting it within its broader disciplinary context. Phenomenology has been used to great effect to critique the Cartesian rationalism inherent in traditional archaeological approaches, encouraging imaginative and valuable reinterpretations of the architecture and landscape settings of different monuments. Nonetheless, there are a number of significant problems raised by this work. The suggestion that the archaeologist’s embodied engagement with an ancient monument or landscape can provide an insight into past experiences and interpretations is critically considered. The epistemological status of the knowledge-claims made, including how and whether the patterns identified should be verified, is discussed. The contribution of phenomenology to postprocessual debates surrounding concepts of the self, the individual, embodiment and emotion are also explored. The work of key proponents of phenomenology such as Tilley and Thomas provides a particular focus, although a range of other authors are also considered.

204 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors discuss the growing methodological sophistication of bioarchaeology and highlight new developments in osteological age and sex estimation, paleodemography, biodistance analysis, biogeochemistry, and taphonomy, particularly anthropologie de terrain.
Abstract: As a discipline that bridges the biological and social sciences, bioarchaeology has much to contribute to a contextualized and theoretically sophisticated understanding of social identities. Here, we discuss the growing methodological sophistication of bioarchaeology and highlight new developments in osteological age and sex estimation, paleodemography, biodistance analysis, biogeochemistry, and taphonomy, particularly anthropologie de terrain. We then discuss how these methodological developments, when united with social theory, can elucidate social identities. More specifically, we highlight past and future bioarchaeological work on disability and impairment, gender identity, identities of age and the life course, social identity and body modification, embodiment, and ethnic and community identities.

182 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The question arose as the discipline sought to develop recommendations for investments in computational infrastructure that would enable the discipline to address its most compelling questions: what are archaeology’s most important scientific challenges?
Abstract: Archaeology is a source of essential data regarding the fundamental nature of human societies. Researchers across the behavioral and social sciences use archeological data in framing foundational arguments. Archaeological evidence frequently undergirds debate on contemporary issues. We propose here to answer “What are archaeology’s most important scientific challenges?” The question arose as we sought to develop recommendations for investments in computational infrastructure that would enable the discipline to address its most compelling questions. Absent a list of these questions, we undertook to develop our own.

181 citations