GONZÁLEZ-RUIBAL. the Past is Tomorrow (Artigo)

8/12/2019 GONZLEZ-RUIBAL. the Past is Tomorrow (Artigo)

1/17

This article was downloaded by:[Gonzlez-Ruibal, Alfredo]On: 23 January 2007Access Details: [subscription number 769868112]Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Norwegian Archaeological ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713926118

The Past is Tomorrow. Towards an Archaeology of theVanishing Present

To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/00293650601030073URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293650601030073

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfThis article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

Taylor and Francis 2007
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713926118http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293650601030073http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293650601030073http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713926118


2/17

D ownl o

a d e d B

y : [ G

onz

l ez -R

ui b

al ,A l f r e

d o ] A

t : 2

0 : 1

8 2

3 J an

u ar y 2

0 0 7

The Past is Tomorrow. Towards anArchaeology of the Vanishing PresentALFREDO GONZA LEZ -R UIBAL

This paper arises from a dissatisfaction with the Great Divides createdbetween past and present, self and others, people and material culture in thecontext of ethnoarchaeology. While conducting ethnoarchaeological researchin Spain, Ethiopia and Brazil, I have been faced with the theoretical andpractical shortcomings of this field, which is too deeply rooted in modernistconcerns and prejudices. I propose a reconsideration of ethnoarchaeology asarchaeology tout court an archaeology of the present which has to besymmetrical in character. This means that present and past must not behierarchically conceived the former in the service of the latter or vice versa nor strictly separated ontologically, and the relations between humans andthings have to be properly problematized.

INTRODUCTION

There is a discomfort among many archae-ologists today for the disciplines movementaway from things, a movement that exacer-bates many of the problems associated withCartesian dualisms. Against this prevailingasymmetry between things and humans,present and past, cultures and natures, someauthors are proposing now a symmetricalway of reasoning and acting (Olsen 2003,2006, Shanks 2005, Witmore 2004, in press,Webmoor 2005), which implies, among otherthings, that people and things are con-structed simultaneously (Latour 1993,2005:76), not as separated entities 1 , and thatpast and present are actually mixed.

Ethnoarchaeology is the study of living,non-industrial societies with the aim of generating archaeological analogies or foodfor the archaeological imagination (David &Kramer 2001). Despite important criticismsand reappraisals (Hodder 1991:107120,Lane 1996, 2006, David & Kramer 2001)

this sub-field of archaeology is still thequintessential asymmetrical science. It is

founded on an absolute distinction betweenpast and present, nature and culture, mod-erns and premoderns, things and people.Ethnoarchaeology is done in the present tounderstand the past, is done by modernsamong premoderns and it works with things-in-themselves to counterbalance the anthro-pologists focus on people-in-themselves.Nonetheless, it would be unfair to depictethnoarchaeology as a homogeneous field.Within the sub-discipline, as in archaeologyin general, there are many different theoriesand practices: the ethnoarchaeology thatmost strongly reinforces the Cartesiandivides and the alienation of the Other isthat practiced by processual archaeologists(e.g. Longacre & Skibo 1994) and, especially,bioarchaeologists working within the socio-biological paradigm a good example isHawkes et al. (1997). Some ethnoarchaeolo-gists, such as Nicholas David (David &

Alfredo Gonzalez-Ruibal , Stanford Archaeology Center, Stanford University, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

ARTICLE Norwegian Archaeological Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2006

DOI: 10.1080/00293650601030073 # 2006 Taylor & Francis


3/17


4/17


5/17


6/17

D ownl o

a d e d B

y : [ G

onz

l ez -R

ui b

al ,A l f r e

d o ] A

t : 2

0 : 1

8 2

3 J an

u ar y 2

0 0 7

Latour 1995:59). Ethiopia is also a good placeto reflect on events very proximate in lineartime that become distant in terms of parti-cular relations. In this country, as in many

others in Africa, it could be said that the pastis tomorrow: one can see farmers ploughingwith a wooden plough (a 1st millennium BCtechnology in the Horn of Africa), near thedecaying ruins of advanced agriculturalmachinery the remains of the modernizingimpetus of the previous communist regime(19741991) (Gonzalez-Ruibal 2006a)(Fig. 4). Modern tractors, mechanized farmsand storage tanks world-objects (Serres

2000:1213) have reverted to the local andthey are now the archaic. This inversion of times jars modern reason and reveals thefragility of its foundational myths (lineartime, science, technology): pasts can return(Witmore in press).

Futuristic ruins: factories and modelfarms lie abandoned in the forest, whilepeople have gone back to the familiardigging stick the oldest agricultural

implement. Some woodlands have been

irremediably damaged by a modern agricul-tural science that does not care for theEarth, and it is the know-how of the ancientswidden cultivators, with their archaic tech-

niques, that can heal such wounds. Serreshas pointed out how time flows accordingto an extraordinarily complex mixture, asthough it reflected stopping points, rup-tures, deep wells, chimneys of thunderousacceleration, rendings, gaps (Serres withLatour 1995). The short supermodern gapof Ethiopia, between two non-modern exis-tences, can be regarded as a chimney of thunderous acceleration or as a deep well in

the whimsical flowing of time. In the wordsof Bruno Latour (1993:74) we can no longersay whether these ruins are outmoded, upto date, futuristic, atemporal, nonexistent,or permanent. Capitalism is not necessarilythe future, the last layer of our archaeolo-gical sites.

I will finish this section with one moreexample, this time from Brazil. Whilecarrying out archaeological research among

the Awa hunter-gatherers (Cormier 2003b),

Fig. 4. Abandoned agricultural machinery in Bambasi (Benishangul, western Ethiopia).

114 Alfredo Gonzalez-Ruibal


7/17


8/17

D ownl o

a d e d B

y : [ G

onz

l ez -R

ui b

al ,A l f r e

d o ] A

t : 2

0 : 1

8 2

3 J an

u ar y 2

0 0 7

Fig. 5. A modern dump with ancient pottery sherds in Posto Ind gena Awa (Maranhao, Brazil).



9/17


10/17


11/17

D ownl o

a d e d B

y : [ G

onz

l ez -R

ui b

al ,A l f r e

d o ] A

t : 2

0 : 1

8 2

3 J an

u ar y 2

0 0 7

engagements did have a strong presence inthat ethnography.

Material culture studies now are flawed bydifferent reasons (Olsen 2003) and my pointis that a symmetrical (ethno)archaeologicalapproach might reconfigure the divisionbetween the material and the immaterial asan indistinguishable whole. Today we are leftwith things or ideas alone, instead of collectives: one has to decide if she or hewants to study society, artefacts or societythrough artefacts. Collectives are never in thepicture. And even when one chooses to studyobjects, it is usually in a very narrow sense:only a category of artefact at a time, as wewill see.

Thus, the German school has kept atotalizing view of material culture, whichcan be seen in the diverse monographies of sub-Saharan African communities that arestill being published (cf. Best 1993, Geis-Tronich 1991, Kroger 2001, Hahn 2003,

2005). Even if they have kept and sometimesdeveloped the material richness of earlyanthropology, the problems with theirapproach are threefold: first, they do not

deal with people and things anymore (as inlate 19th and early 20th century ethnogra-phy), but with things-in-themselves; second,they rarely have taken into account Westernartefacts; and finally, they usually work withoutdated sociological frameworks (but seeHahn 2005).

The French or French-speaking tradition,following Durkheims and later Mausslegacy, is much richer from a sociological

point of view, but it is rarely totalizing (seethe journal Techniques et culture ). Thus, thePetrequins study axes (Petrequin 1993) orpots (Petrequin 1999) in impressive detailand with remarkable sociological sensibility,but they do not explore the relations betweenthem, the whole ecology of things in theMelanesian societies that they study. In fact,with a few exceptions (Lemonnier 1992), fewauthors deal with full material assemblages.

Pierre Lemonnier (1992:9) has pointed outhow little chance there is of understandingthe material culture of any society by study-ing just a few artefacts, or, worse, bystudying artefacts of only a single type. Onthe other hand, anthropologists such asGodelier, Meillassoux or Clastres rarely takematerial culture into account; at the most,they see objects as material metaphors of wider social facts (e.g. Godelier 2002).

Finally, the Anglo-Saxon (and more spe-cifically British) school, with its prevailingfocus on Western artefacts, after the post-colonial turn, reflected in the Journal of Material Culture , has also deprived us of theholistic approaches of early ethnographies.They have even led us further away fromother ways of using, thinking and engagingwith material culture. This is what happenswhen anthropologists return home from thetropics, as Latour (1993:100) bemoans.Thus, material culture specialists study cars(Miller 2001), radios (Schiffer 1991), trench-art (Saunders 2003) or lingerie (Storr 2003).

Fig. 7. Dogon granaries in Mali. After MissionDakkar-Djibouti (1938).

The Past is Tomorrow 119


12/17

D ownl o

a d e d B

y : [ G

onz

l ez -R

ui b

al ,A l f r e

d o ] A

t : 2

0 : 1

8 2

3 J an

u ar y 2

0 0 7

And even when they dare look beyond theirhome towns, Anglo-Saxon material cultur-ists seem to be interested only in very partialstudies see, for example, the otherwise

wonderful work of Glassie (1999).Ethnoarchaeology has been, in some cases,a way of engaging more fully with themateriality of traditional communities (e.g.Watson 1979, Hodder 1982, Horne 1994),but the problem in this case, as it was said atthe beginning of this paper, is the radicaldistinction usually drawn between past andpresent; the former only studied by virtue of their use in the past (but see Sillitoe 1998).

By losing sight of assemblages of peopleand things, we have also forgotten matter atlarge, which is no longer present even as ablank scenario of the ethnographic work. Wehave baskets, or cars, or the mothersbrother, or middle-class homes, or pimps.Yet few people undertake the detailedempirical task of describing and representingall the artefacts, details and textures presentin a house, village or town, along with its

inhabitants people and animals in orderto engage with the messiness and materialdensity of the world we inhabit (but see

Buchli & Lucas 2001, Shanks 2004). Maybewe have to go back to the tropics with a newgaze and learn how to deal with materiality.

Again, when I walk through a village in

Ethiopia, I do not experience the place asrepresented in most ethnographic works. Ido not find well-delineated spaces, moities,symbolic axes, or the embodied cosmos, norcan I distinguish pots, people or houses asseparate entities. I see bamboo fences, bones,mud, dust, pottery sherds, ashes, troddensoil, and excrements (Fig. 8). I smell rubbishand flowers, food and sweat; I hear childrensinging, goats bleating and the sound of the

sickle on the sorghum stalks. Thats the placepeople live immersed in: what most archae-ologists call background noise (Witmore inpress) and the repugnant laboratory thatphilosophers of science abhor (Latour1993:21). Maybe I can notice the sherds,the bleats and the rubbish because, unlikeGeertz (1973:22) and Clifford (1997:21), I dostudy villages, not simply in villages. For me,villages are not the scenario of transactions

between people, but a collective of people,things, animals and materializations of theirmanifold transactions. And this does not

Fig. 8. Ashes, stones, pots, soil: walking through a Gumuz village (Manjare, Metekel, western Ethiopia).



13/17

D ownl o

a d e d B

y : [ G

onz

l ez -R

ui b

al ,A l f r e

d o ] A

t : 2

0 : 1

8 2

3 J an

u ar y 2

0 0 7

mean that settlements and houses do nothave meaning, do not embody the cosmos orreplicate the body, but the meaning isbrought up in practice (Bourdieu 1990)

through daily sensuous engagements withthose chaotic places (Gonzalez-Ruibal2006b). They are not inscribed as thegeometric surface of a white sheet of paper,as the ethnographer seems to imagine it.How is it that, if the particular collective thatare the Gumuz mobilizes fences and excre-ments, tombs and goats bones, doors, pots,children and ancestors, they disappear fromthe idealized representation of space and

culture that ethnographers give us? All themateriality of place is erased by anthropol-ogy and much archaeology (cf. Tilley1994:711), both in discourse and in itsvisual representation (Olsen 2003, 2006,Shanks 2004; Webmoor 2005).

Archaeologists have a keen sense forthe material, for entropic decay and attimes abject detail (Pearson & Shanks 2001:9193, Shanks et al. 2004). Yet when it

comes to present a site, they often act as

anthropologists, cleaning the mess, orderingthe ruins, privileging the ideal over thematerial, avoiding the repugnant task of digging into the substance of things (Olsen

2006:97). In my study of abandoned peasanthouses in Galicia (Spain) (Gonzalez-Ruibal2005), I came to realize that messiness waskey to grasp the gist of the overall phenom-enon: mass emigration and traumatic cul-tural change. Decay was not thearchaeological process that had to be clearedup to reach meaning about hidden socialissues, but decay, dirt, disorder the abject were themselves the issues. It was not

possible to understand rural Galicians with-out the ruinous and derelict landscape thatmediated their lives (Fig. 9). That could be,in my opinion, another substantial contribu-tion of an archaeology of the present to asymmetrical archaeology. It offers anotherway of approaching the deep relationsbetween humans and things that does justiceto their essentially chaotic, messy nature. Itshould respect the collectives we study with-

out asymmetrically sorting out and tearing

Fig. 9. An abandoned house in Corcores, Galicia (northwestern Spain).



14/17

D ownl o

a d e d B

y : [ G

onz

l ez -R

ui b

al ,A l f r e

d o ] A

t : 2

0 : 1

8 2

3 J an

u ar y 2

0 0 7

apart its human and material components. Itrethinks anew the role of things (as objectsare the outcome of such relations) in theconstruction of collectives (Latour 1993:55).

At the end of the day, it is all a matter of translation: articulating aspects of the mate-rial world something of the locality, multi-plicity, and materiality that are often sievedaway by paper-based modes of documenta-tion (Witmore 2004, in press).

CONCLUSION: THE NATURALCONTRACT

In this article, I have argued that ethnoarch-aeology must be refashioned as the archae-ology of the present and, in this way, itcan help to bypass annoying Cartesiandualisms. This archaeology works with livingcommunities, studies collectives composed of humans, animals and things, investigates thetextures of daily life, and assesses thecomplex nature of time, as enmeshed inthings and landscape. This archaeology of

the present goes beyond social anthropol-ogy, which has forgotten things; recentmaterial culture studies, which havedispensed with totalities of artefacts(the British and French school) or withpeople and ideas (the German school);ethnoarchaeology, which studies only objectsand creates a divide between past andpresent; and asymmetrical archaeology,which has done without materiality and triesto impose an anthropologically-influencedorder and meaning on the things it studies.The archaeology of the present is notconceived as an analogical practice, whichseeks in some living cultures inspiration forunderstanding dead others. Nonethelessby carrying out this kind of research, wecan still contribute to archaeology andanthropology as a whole, by encouraging amore reflexive, symmetrical and materially-conscious practice.

Finally, working with the non-moderncommunities of the present may be relevantfrom another point of view: it alerts against

the dangers of the modern divides and itspractical outcomes. My work in Ethiopia,Spain and Brazil with non-capitalist societieshas an elegiac stance. I am documenting the

end of other ways of living with nature andculture, things and people, past and present an end imposed by a very asymmetrical wayof reasoning and engaging with the world.From this point of view, I am doing anarchaeology of the vanishing present (withapologies to Gayatri Spivak). The end of other rationalities and other ways of enga-ging with the world comes hand in hand withan attempt to obliterate the past and to fill

the present with rubbish and rubble: defor-ested woodlands, shattered vernacularspaces, factories in the jungle.

In his book The natural contract , MichelSerres (1995:25) says that if our rationalcould wed the real, the real our rational, ourreasoned undertakings would leave no resi-due; so if garbage proliferates in the gapbetween them, its because that gap producespollution, which fills in the distance between

the rational and the real. Since the filth isgrowing, the breach between the two worldsmust be getting worse. In my work with theBertha and Gumuz of the Ethiopian low-lands, the Awa of the Amazon and my ownkinsfolk, the Galician peasants, I am explor-ing this breach filled with rubbish and I amtrying to find out how to bring the real andthe rational together: how to heal thesewounds, if there is still time.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This article is based on a paper read at the71st Annual Meeting of the Society forAmerican Archaeology (28 April 2006, SanJuan, Puerto Rico). I want to thank BjrnarOlsen for encouraging me to publish aversion of that paper. Funding for fieldworkin Ethiopia (20012005) was provided by theDireccion General de Bellas Artes, Ministryof Culture (Spain) and was part of anarchaeological and ethnoarchaeological pro- ject directed by V ctor M. Fernandez Mart nez



15/17

D ownl o

a d e d B

y : [ G

onz

l ez -R

ui b

al ,A l f r e

d o ] A

t : 2

0 : 1

8 2

3 J an

u ar y 2

0 0 7

(Department of Prehistory, ComplutenseUniversity of Madrid). Fieldwork in Brazil(2005) was funded by the same agency anddirected by Almudena Hernando Gonzalo

(same institution). The writing of this articlehas been possible thanks to a MEC/Fulbright post-doctoral fellowship atStanford University (20052006). I amgreatly indebted to Chris Witmore forreading (again) in detail a paper of mine.As usual, his many suggestions haveimproved this article. I want to thankRandi Barndon and an anonymous refereefor their useful criticisms and comments.

Any errors remain my own.

NOTES1 This ontological symmetry must never be

mistaken with an ethical symmetry betweenpeople and things. For Bruno Latour To besymmetric simply means not to impose apriori spurious asymmetry among human inten-tional action and a material world of causalrelations. There are divisions one should nevertry to bypass, to go beyond, to try to overcomedialectically. They should rather be ignored andleft to their own devices, like a once formidablecastle now in ruins (Latour 2005:76). Somerecent work on the agency of things, albeitgiving more relevance to the material world, stillpresents people and things as two intrinsicallyseparate beings. In so doing, agency, formerlythe strict property of humans-in-themselves, isnow transposed to artefacts-in-themselves (e.g.

Gosden 2005). On the other hand, asking aboutwhat objects or pictures want, the rhetoricalpurpose notwithstanding, gets close to establish-ing a dangerous ethical symmetry betweenpeople and things.

REFERENCES

Ahmad, A. 1988. Hunting in Gojjam: the case of Matakal (19011932). In Beyene, T. (ed.)

Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies , pp. 237244.University of Addis Ababa, Addis Ababa,1984.

Best, G. 1993. Marakwet & Turkana. NeueEinblicke in die Materielle Kultur ostafrika-nischer Gessellschaften . Museum furVolkerkunde, Frankfurt and Main.

Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice . StanfordUniversity Press, Stanford.

Buchli, V. & Lucas, G. 2001. The archaeologyof alienation: a late twentieth- centuryBritish council house. In Buchli, V. &Lucas, G. (eds.) Archaeologies of theContemporary Past , pp. 158167. Routledge,London, New York.

Clifford, J. 1997. Routes. Travel and translationin the late 20th century . Harvard Univer-sity Press, Cambridge (Massachussets) &

London.Cormier, L. 2003a. Decolonizing history. Ritualtransformation of the past among the Guaja of Eastern Amazonia. In Whitehead, N.L. (ed.)Histories and Historicities in Amazonia ,pp. 123139. University of Nebraska Press,Lincoln & London.

Cormier, L.A. 2003b. Kinship with monkeys: theGuaja foragers of eastern Amazonia . ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York.

Czekanowski, J. 1911. Dritter Band.

Ethnographish-Anthropologischer Atlas.Zwischen-Bantu. Pygmaen und Pygmoiden .Urwaldstamme. Forschungen im Nil-KongoZwischengebiet. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisseder Deutschen Zentral-Afrika-Expedition19071908, Klinkhardt und Biermann, Leipzig.

Czekanowski, J. 1917. Erster Band. Ethnographie.Zwischengebiet. Mpororo. Rwanda .Urwaldstamme. Forschungen im Nil-KongoZwischengebiet. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisseder Deutschen Zentral-Afrika-Expedition

19071908. Leipzig: Klinkhardt undBiermann.

Czekanowski, J. 1924. Zweiter Band. Ethno- graphie. Uele/Ituri/Nil-Lander. Urwaldstamme.Forschungen im Nil-Kongo Zwischengebiet .Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der DeutschenZentral-Afrika-Expedition 19071908. Leipzig:Klinkhardt und Biermann.

David, N. & Kramer, C. 2001. Ethnoarchaeologyin action . Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.Fabian, J. 1983. Time and the Other. Howanthropology makes its object . ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York.



16/17


17/17

D ownl o

a d e d B

y : [ G

onz

l ez -R

ui b

al ,A l f r e

d o ] A

t : 2

0 : 1

8 2

3 J an

u ar y 2

0 0 7

method and theory . Smithsonian Institution,Washington.

Miller, D. (ed.). 2001. Car cultures . Berg, Oxford& New York.

Mission Dakar-Djibouti, 1938. Mission Dakar-Djibouti 19311933. Minotaure 2, Paris.

Olivier, L. 2000. Limpossible archeologie de lamemoire. A` propos de W ou le souvenirdenfance de Georges Perec. European Journal of Archaeology 3 , 387406.

Olsen, B. 2003. Material culture after text: re-membering things. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36 , 87104.

Olsen, B. 2006. Scenes from a troubled engage-ment: Post-structuralism and material culturestudies. In Tilley, C., Keane, W., Kuchler, S.,Rowlands, M. & Spyer, P. (eds.) Handbook of Material Culture , pp. 85103. Sage, London,Thousand Oaks & New Delhi.

Pearson, M. & Shanks, M. 2001. Theater/ Archaeology . London, New York: Routledge.

Petrequin, P. & Petrequin, A.M. 1993. Ecologiedun outil. La hache de pierre en Irian Jaya(Indonesie) . CNRS, Paris.

Petrequin, P. & Petrequin, A.M. 1999. La poterieen Nouvelle Guinee: savoir-faire et transmis-sion des techniques. Journal de la Societe desOceanistes 108 , 71101.

Saunders, N. 2003. Trench art: materialities and memories of war . Berg, Oxford & New York.

Schiffer, M.B. 1991. The portable radio inAmerican life . University of Arizona Press,Tucson.

Serres, M. 1995. The natural contract . TheUniversity of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Serres, M. 2000. Retour au contrat naturel .Bibliotheque National de France, Paris.

Serres, M. & with Latour, B. 1995. Conversationson Science, Culture, and Time . The Universityof Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Shanks, M. 1997. Photography and Archaeology.In Molineaux, B. (ed.) The Cultural Life of Images: Visual Representation in Archaeology ,pp. 73107. Routledge, London & New York.

Shanks, M. 2004. Three rooms. Archaeology andPerformance. Journal of Social Archaeology 4 ,147180.

Shanks, M. 2005. From a post-processual to asymmetrical archaeology. Paper read at theTheoretical Archaeology Group (TAG) 2005.Sheffield, December 2005.

Shanks, M., Platt, D. & Rathje, W.L. 2004. ThePerfume of Garbage. Modernity/Modernism 11 ,6883.

Shelton, A.A. 2000. Museum ethnography: animperial science. In Hallam, E. & Street, B.(eds.) Cultural encounters. Encountering Otherness , pp. 155193. Routledge, London &New York.

Sillitoe, P. 1998. An introduction to theAnthropology of Melanesia: Culture and Tradition . Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Storr, M. 2003. Latex and lingerie: shopping for pleasure at Ann Summers . Berg, Oxford & NewYork.

Thomas, J. 2004. Archaeology and modernity .Routledge, London & New York.

Tilley, C. 1994. A phenomenology of landscape .Berg, Oxford.

Watson, P.J. 1979. Archaeological ethnography inwestern Iran . Viking Fund Publications inAnthropology 57, University of ArizonaPress, Tucson.

Webmoor, T. 2005. Mediational techniquesand conceptual frameworks in archaeology.A model in mapwork at Teotihuacan,Mexico. Journal of Social Archaeology 5 ,5284.

Witmore, C. 2004. On multiple fields. Betweenthe material world and media: Two casesfrom the Peloponnesus, Greece.Archaeological Dialogues 11 , 133164.

Witmore, C. 2007. Landscape, time, topology: Anarchaeological account of the southern ArgolidGreece. In D. Hicks, G. Fairclough and L.McAtackney, L. (eds.): Envisioning Landscape .One World Archaeology. 2007 (in press).


GONZÁLEZ-RUIBAL. the Past is Tomorrow (Artigo)

Documents

Transcript of GONZÁLEZ-RUIBAL. the Past is Tomorrow (Artigo)