Bibliography for ARCL2028: Current Issues in Archaeological Theory

[1]
Greene, Kevin and Moore, Tom, Archaeology: an introduction, 5th ed. London: Routledge, 2010.

[2]
D. Henson, Doing archaeology: a subject guide for students. London: Routledge, 2012 [Online]. Available: https://www-taylorfrancis-com.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/books/mono/10.4324/9780203109878/archaeology-donald-henson

[3]
I. Hodder and S. Hutson, Reading the past: current approaches to interpretation in archaeology, Third edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003 [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814211

[4]
Hodder, Ian, The archaeological process: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.

[5]
Hodder, Ian, Archaeological theory today. Cambridge: Polity, 2001 [Online]. Available: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=nlebk&AN=1101335&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=s8454451

[6]
Johnson, Matthew, Archaeological theory: an introduction, 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

[7]
Trigger, Bruce G., A history of archaeological thought, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006 [Online]. Available: https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1017/CBO9780511813016

[8]
Urban, Patricia A. and Schortman, Edward M., Archaeological theory in practice. Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press, 2012.

[9]
I. Hodder, ‘Towards a reflexive method’, in The archaeological process: an introduction, Oxford: Blackwell, 1999, pp. 80–104.

[10]
M. Johnson, ‘Common sense is not enough’, in Archaeological theory: an introduction, 2nd ed., Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, pp. 1–11.

[11]
C. Redman, ‘The development of archaeological theory’, in Companion encyclopedia of archaeology, London: Routledge, 1999, pp. 48–80.

[12]
R. Bentley and M. Alexander, ‘Introduction on archaeological theories’, in Handbook of archaeological theories, Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2008.

[13]
D. L. Clarke, ‘Archaeology: The loss of innocence’, Antiquity, vol. 47, no. 185, pp. 6–18, 1973.

[14]
Margaret W. Conkey, ‘Questioning Theory: Is There a Gender of Theory in Archaeology?’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 285–310, 2007.

[15]
K. Greene, ‘Chapter 6: making sense of the past’, in Archaeology: an introduction, 5th ed., London: Routledge, 2010, pp. 249–312 [Online]. Available: http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=UCL&isbn=9780203835975

[16]
I. Hodder, ‘Introduction: a review of contemporary theoretical debate in archaeology’, in Archaeological theory today, Cambridge: Polity, 2001, pp. 1–13 [Online]. Available: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=nlebk&AN=1101335&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=s8454451

[17]
Meskell, Lynn and Preucel, Robert W., A companion to social archaeology, vol. Social archaeology. Malden, MA.: Blackwell Pub. Ltd, 2004 [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470693605

[18]
O’Brien, Michael J., Lyman, R. Lee, and Schiffer, Michael B., Archaeology as a process: processualism and its progeny. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005.

[19]
Praetzellis, Adrian, Death by theory: a tale of mystery and archaeological theory. Oxford: AltaMira Press, 2000.

[20]
J. Thomas, ‘Where are we now? Archaeological theory in the 1990s’, in Theory in archaeology: a world perspective, London: Routledge, 1994, pp. 343–362.

[21]
Trigger, Bruce G., A history of archaeological thought, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006 [Online]. Available: https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1017/CBO9780511813016

[22]
VanPool, Todd L. and VanPool, Christine S., Essential tensions in archaeological method and theory, vol. Foundations of archaeological inquiry. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2003.

[23]
Yoffee, Norman and Sherratt, Andrew, Archaeological theory: who sets the agenda?, vol. New directions in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

[24]
V. G. Childe, ‘What happens in prehistory?’, in Piecing together the past: the interpretation of archaeological data, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1956, pp. 135–158 [Online]. Available: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=c1eea4f3-9536-e711-80c9-005056af4099

[25]
C. Hawkes, ‘Wenner-Gren Foundation Supper Conference - Archaeological theory and method: Some suggestiongs from the Old World’, American Anthropologist, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 155–168, 1954 [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/664357

[26]
B. G. Trigger, ‘Culture-historical archaeology’, in A history of archaeological thought, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 211–313.

[27]
V. G. Childe, ‘Preface and chapter 1’, in The Danube in prehistory, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929, pp. v-xii-1–7.

[28]
V. Gordon Childe, ‘Changing aims and methods in prehistory’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, vol. 1, pp. 1–15, 1935 [Online]. Available: http://ls-tlss.ucl.ac.uk/course-materials/ARCL2028_47033.pdf

[29]
Clark, Grahame, Archaeology and society, 3rd ed. London: Methuen, 1960.

[30]
M. Diaz-Andreu, ‘Britain and the Other: the archaeology of imperialism’, in History, nationhood, and the question of Britain, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, pp. 227–241.

[31]
Díaz-Andreu García, Margarita, A world history of nineteenth-century archaeology: nationalism, colonialism, and the past. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007 [Online]. Available: https://academic-oup-com.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/book/40265

[32]
Fagan, Brian M., Grahame Clark: an intellectual biography of an archaeologist. Boulder, Colo: Westview, 2001.

[33]
Harris, David R., Childe, V. Gordon, V. Gordon Childe Centennial Conference, University College, London, and Prehistoric Society (London, England), The archaeology of V. Gordon Childe: contemporary perspectives : proceedings of the V. Gordon Childe Centennial Conference held at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 8-9 May 1992 under the auspices of the Institute of Archaeology and the Prehistoric Society. London: UCL Press, 1994.

[34]
R. Hingley, ‘Chapters 9 and 10’, in Roman officers and English gentlemen: the imperial origins of Roman archaeology, New York: Routledge, 2000.

[35]
S. Jones, ‘Chapter 2’, in The archaeology of ethnicity: constructing identities in the past and present, London: Routledge, 1997.

[36]
Lyman, R. Lee, O’Brien, Michael J., and Dunnell, Robert C., The rise and fall of culture history. London: Plenum Press, 1997.

[37]
R. L. Lyman and M. J. O’Brien, ‘A history of normative theory in Americanist archaeology’, Journal of archaeological method and theory, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 369–396, 2004.

[38]
Patterson, Thomas Carl, Marx’s ghost: conversations with archaeologists. Oxford: Berg, 2003.

[39]
C. Renfrew, ‘Beyond diffusion’, in Before civilization: the radiocarbon revolution and prehistoric Europe, London: Pimlico, 1999, pp. 109–119.

[40]
A. Schnapp, ‘Between antiquarians and archaeologists - Continuities and ruptures’, Antiquity, vol. 76, no. 291, pp. 134–140, 2002.

[41]
S. J. Shennan, ‘Introduction: archaeological approaches to cultural identity’, in Archaeological approaches to cultural identity, vol. One world archaeology, London: Routledge, 1994, pp. 1–32.

[42]
A. C. Spaulding, ‘Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types’, American Antiquity, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 305–313, 1953.

[43]
W. W. Taylor, ‘Chapter 6’, in A study of archaeology, vol. Memoir series of the American Anthropological Association, [S.l.]: American Anthropological Association, 1948.

[44]
G. Webster, ‘Culture history: a culture-historical approach’, in Handbook of archaeological theories, Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2008, pp. 11–27 [Online]. Available: https://www.vlebooks.com/Product/Index/156042?page=0&startBookmarkId=-1

[45]
Wheeler, Robert Eric Mortimer, Archaeology from the earth. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954.

[46]
L. R. Binford, ‘Archaeological perspectives’, in New perspectives in archeology, Chicago: Aldine, 1968, pp. 5–32.

[47]
L. R. Binford, ‘A consideration of archaeological research design’, American Antiquity, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 425–441, 1964.

[48]
B. G. Trigger, ‘Current trends in American archaeology’, in Time and traditions: essays in archaeological interpretation, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1978, pp. 2–18.

[49]
L. R. Binford, ‘Archaeology as anthropology’, American Antiquity, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 217–225, 1962.

[50]
D. L. Clarke, ‘Archaeology: The loss of innocence’, Antiquity, vol. 47, no. 185, pp. 6–18, 1973.

[51]
Clarke, David L. and Chapman, Bob, Analytical archaeology, 2nd ed. London: Methuen, 1978.

[52]
G. Clark, ‘Economic approach to prehistory’, in Economic prehistory: papers on archaeology, Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 149–168.

[53]
R. C. Dunnell, ‘Five decades of American archaeology’, in American archaeology, past and future: a celebration of the Society for American Archaeology, 1935-1985, London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1986.

[54]
K. V. Flannery, ‘Culture history vs. culture process: A Debate in American archaeology’, Scientific American, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 119–122, 1967.

[55]
K. V. Flannery, ‘Archaeological systems theory and early Mesoamerica’, in Anthropological archeology in the Americas, Washington, DC: The Anthropological Society of Washington, 1968, pp. 67–87.

[56]
R. L. Lyman, ‘What is the `process’ in cultural process and in processual archaeology?’, Anthropological Theory, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 217–250, Jun. 2007, doi: 10.1177/1463499607077299.

[57]
David J. Meltzer, ‘Paradigms and the Nature of Change in American Archaeology’, American Antiquity, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 644–657, 1979.

[58]
O’Brien, Michael J., Lyman, R. Lee, and Schiffer, Michael B., Archaeology as a process: processualism and its progeny. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005.

[59]
F. Plog, ‘Laws, systems of laws and the explanation of observed variation’, in The explanation of culture change: models in prehistory, London: Duckworth, 1973, pp. 649–661.

[60]
C. L. Redman, ‘Distinguished lecture in archaeology: In defence of the seventies - The adolescence of New Archaeology’, American Anthropologist, vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 295–307, 1991.

[61]
C. Renfrew, ‘Culture systems and the multiplier effect’, in The emergence of civilisation: the Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C., vol. Studies in prehistory, London: Methuen, 1972, pp. 19–44.

[62]
C. Renfrew, ‘Monuments, mobilization and social organization in Neolithic Wessex’, in The explanation of culture change: models in prehistory, London: Duckworth, 1973, pp. 539–558.

[63]
W. W. Taylor, ‘Chapter 6’, in A study of archaeology, vol. Memoir series of the American Anthropological Association, [S.l.]: American Anthropological Association, 1948.

[64]
W. W. Taylor, ‘Old wine and new skins: A contemporary parable’, in Contemporary archaeology: a guide to theory and contributions, Carbondale, Ill: Feffer & Simons, 1972, pp. 28–33.

[65]
B. G. Trigger, ‘Chapter 7’, in A history of archaeological thought, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006 [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813016

[66]
B. G. Trigger, ‘Aims in prehistoric archaeology’, Antiquity, vol. 44, no. 173, pp. 26–37, 1970.

[67]
P. J. Watson, ‘Processualism and after’, in Handbook of archaeological theories, Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2008, pp. 29–38.

[68]
L. R. Binford, ‘Relics to artifacts and monuments to assemblages: changing conceptual frameworks’, in Bones: ancient men and modern myths, vol. Studies in archaeology, London: Academic Press, 1981, pp. 3–20.

[69]
K. V. Flannery, ‘The Golden Marshalltown: A Parable for the Archeology of the 1980s’, American Anthropologist, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 265–278, Jun. 1982 [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1982.84.2.02a00010

[70]
M. B. Schiffer, ‘Archaeological context and systemic context’, American Antiquity, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 156–165, 1972.

[71]
P. Arnold, ‘Back to basics: the middle-range program as pragmatic archaeology’, in Essential tensions in archaeological method and theory, vol. Foundations of archaeological inquiry, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2003, pp. 55–66.

[72]
L. R. Binford, ‘General introduction’, in For theory building in archaeology: essays on faunal remains, aquatic resources, spatial analysis and systemic modeling, vol. Studies in archeology, London: Academic Press, 1977, pp. 1–10.

[73]
L. R. Binford, ‘Behavioural archaeological and the “Pompeii Premise” ’, Journal of Anthropological Research, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 195–208, 1981.

[74]
Binford, Lewis Roberts, Constructing frames of reference: an analytical method for archaeological theory building using hunter-gatherer and environmental data sets. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.

[75]
Butzer, Karl W., Archaeology as human ecology: method and theory for a contextual approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

[76]
Courbin, Paul, What is archaeology?: an essay on the nature of archaeological research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

[77]
Robert C. Dunnell, ‘The Harvey Lecture Series. Science, Social Science, and Common Sense: The Agonizing Dilemma of Modern Archaeology’, Journal of Anthropological Research, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1–25, 1982.

[78]
B. Hayden and A. Cannon, ‘Where the garbage goes: Refuse disposal in the Maya Highlands’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 117–163, Jun. 1983, doi: 10.1016/0278-4165(83)90010-7.

[79]
E. S. Higgs and C. Vita-Finzi, ‘Prehistoric economies: A territorial approach’, in Papers in economic prehistory: studies by members and associates of the British Academy Major Research Project in the Early History of Agriculture, London: Cambridge University Press, 1972, pp. 27–36.

[80]
V. LaMotta and M. Schiffer, ‘Behavioral archaeology. Towards a new synthesis’, in Archaeological theory today, Cambridge: Polity, 2001 [Online]. Available: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=nlebk&AN=1101335&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=s8454451

[81]
Leone, Mark P., Contemporary archaeology: a guide to theory and contributions. Carbondale, Ill: Feffer & Simons, 1972.

[82]
L. E. Patrik, ‘Is there an archaeological record?’, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 8, pp. 27–62, 1985.

[83]
B. J. Price, ‘Cultural Materialism: A Theoretical Review’, American Antiquity, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 709–741, 1982.

[84]
Renfrew, Colin and Research Seminar in Archaeology and Related Subjects, The explanation of culture change: models in prehistory. London: Duckworth, 1973.

[85]
Schiffer, Michael B., Behavioral archaeology, vol. Studies in archaeology. London: Academic Press, 1976.

[86]
M. B. Schiffer, ‘Is there a “Pompeii Premise” in archaeology?’, Journal of Anthropological Research, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 18–41, 1985.

[87]
Schiffer, Michael B., Behavioral archaeology: first principles, vol. Foundations of archaeological inquiry. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1995.

[88]
Schiffer, Michael B., Formation processes of the archaeological record. Albuquerque, N.M.: University of New Mexico Press, 1987.

[89]
M. J. Shott, ‘Status and role of formation theory in contemporary archaeological practice’, Journal of archaeological research, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 299–329, 1998.

[90]
B. G. Trigger, ‘Expanding middle-range theory’, Antiquity, vol. 69, no. 264, pp. 449–458, 1995.

[91]
A. Wylie, ‘The reaction against analogy’, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 8, pp. 63–111, 1985.

[92]
I. Hodder, ‘Chapter 1: The problem’, in Reading the past: current approaches to interpretation in archaeology, 3rd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 1–19.

[93]
M. Leone, ‘Towards a critical archaeology’, Current Anthropology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 283–302, 1987.

[94]
M. Shanks and C. Y. Tilley, ‘Chapter 3: facts and values in archaeology’, in Re-constructing archaeology: theory and practice, 2nd ed., London: Routledge, 1992, pp. 46–67.

[95]
A. Wylie, ‘The interpretive dilemma’, in Critical traditions in contemporary archaeology: essays in the philosophy, history and socio-politics of archaeology, vol. New directions in archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 18–27.

[96]
Review by: Lewis R. Binford, ‘American Antiquity’, vol. Vol. 53, no. No. 4, pp. 875–876.

[97]
G. L. Cowgill, ‘Distinguished lecture in archaeology: Beyond criticizing New Archaeology’, American Anthropologist, New Series, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 551–573, 1993.

[98]
T. K. Earle et. al., ‘Processual archaeology and the radical critique’, Current Anthropology, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 501–538, 1987.

[99]
I. Hodder, ‘Theoretical archaeology: A reactionary view’, in Symbolic and structural archaeology, vol. New directions in archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, pp. 92–121.

[100]
I. Hodder, ‘Postprocessual archaeology’, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 8, pp. 1–26, 1985.

[101]
M. Johnson, ‘Chapters 6 and 7’, in Archaeological theory: an introduction, 2nd ed., Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

[102]
M. Leone, ‘Symbolic, structural and critical archaeology’, in American archaeology, past and future: a celebration of the Society for American Archaeology, 1935-1985, London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1986, pp. 415–438.

[103]
M. Shanks and C. Y. Tilley, ‘Archaeology and the politics of theory’, in Social theory and archaeology, Cambridge: Polity in association with Blackwell, 1987, pp. 186–208.

[104]
Shanks, Michael and Tilley, Christopher Y., Re-constructing archaeology: theory and practice, 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 1992.

[105]
M. Shanks, ‘Post-processual archaeology and after’, in Handbook of archaeological theories, Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2008, pp. 133–144.

[106]
C. Y. Tilley, ‘Ideology and the legitimation of power in the middle Neolithic of southern Sweden’, in Ideology, power and prehistory, vol. New directions in archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984, pp. 111–145.

[107]
B. G. Trigger, ‘Distinguished lecture in archaeology: Constraint and freedom - A new synthesis for archaeological explanation’, American Anthropologist, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 551–569, 1991.

[108]
B. G. Trigger, ‘Archaeology at the Crossroads: What’s New?’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 275–300, Oct. 1984, doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.13.100184.001423.

[109]
B. G. Trigger, ‘Chapter 8: Processualism and post-processualism’, in A history of archaeological thought, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006 [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813016

[110]
A. Wylie, ‘On “heavily decomposing red herrings”. Scientific method in archaeology and the ladening of evidence with theory’, in Metaarchaeology: reflections by archaeologists and philosophers, vol. Boston studies in the philosophy of science, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992, pp. 145–157.

[111]
M. Shanks and I. Hodder, ‘Processual, postprocessual and interpretive archaeologies’, in Interpreting archaeology: finding meaning in the past, London: Routledge, 1994, pp. 3–29.

[112]
M. Shanks and C. Tilley, ‘Comments on Archaeology into the 1990s’, Norwegian Archaeological Review, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 12–54, 1989 [Online]. Available: https://www-tandfonline-com.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/toc/sarc20/22/1?nav=tocList

[113]
Barrett, John C., Fragments from antiquity: an archaeology of social life in Britain, 2900-1200 BC, vol. Social archaeology. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell, 1993.

[114]
J. Brück, ‘Experiencing the past? The development of a phenomenological archaeology in British prehistory’, Archaeological Dialogues, vol. 12, no. 01, pp. 45–72, Aug. 2005, doi: 10.1017/S1380203805001583.

[115]
Buchli, Victor, Lucas, Gavin, and Cox, Margaret, Archaeologies of the contemporary past. London: Routledge, 2001.

[116]
C. Chippindale, ‘Ambition, deference, discrepancy, comsumption: the intellectual background to a post-processual archaeology’, in Archaeological theory: who sets the agenda?, vol. New directions in archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 27–36.

[117]
Dobres, Marcia-Anne, Technology and social agency: outlining a practice framework for archaeology, vol. Social archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000.

[118]
T. A. Dowson, ‘Homosexuality, queer theory and archaeology’, in Interpretive archaeology: a reader, London: Leicester University Press, 2000, pp. 283–289.

[119]
J. M. Gero and M. Wright, ‘Tensions, pluralities and engendering archaeology: An introduction to Women and Prehistory’, in Engendering archaeology: women and prehistory, vol. Social archaeology, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 3–30.

[120]
M. Hegmon, ‘Setting theoretical egos aside: Issues and theory in North American archaeology’, American Antiquity, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 213–243, 2003.

[121]
I. Hodder, ‘Interpretive archaeology and its role’, American Antiquity, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 7–18, 1991.

[122]
I. Hodder, ‘Material practice, symbolism and ideology’, in Theory and practice in archaeology, vol. Material cultures, London: Routledge, 1992, pp. 201–212.

[123]
Hodder, Ian, Interpreting archaeology: finding meaning in the past. London: Routledge, 1994.

[124]
I. Hodder, H. Karlsson, and B. Olsen, ‘40 Years of Theoretical Engagement: A Conversation with Ian Hodder’, Norwegian Archaeological Review, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 26–42, Jun. 2008, doi: 10.1080/00293650802181154.

[125]
V. LaMotta and M. Schiffer, ‘Behavioral archaeology. Towards a new synthesis’, in Archaeological theory today, Rev. and Updated ed., Cambridge: Polity, 2012, pp. 14–64.

[126]
Mackenzie, Iain M., Archaeological theory: progress or posture?, vol. Worldwide archaeology series. Aldershot: Avebury, 1994.

[127]
Meskell, Lynn, Archaeologies of social life: age, sex, class et cetera in ancient Egypt, vol. Social archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.

[128]
R. W. Preucel, ‘The postprocessual condition’, Journal of Archaeological Research, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 147–175, 1995.

[129]
C. Renfrew, ‘Towards a cognitive archaeology’, in The ancient mind: elements of cognitive archaeology, vol. New directions in archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 3–12.

[130]
M. Shanks, ‘Post-processual archaeology and after’, in Handbook of archaeological theories, Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2008, pp. 133–144 [Online]. Available: http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=UCL&isbn=9780759113602

[131]
Tarlow, Sarah and West, Susie, The familiar past?: archaeologies of later historical Britain. London: Routledge, 1999.

[132]
J. Thomas, ‘Where are we now? Archaeological theory in the 1990s’, in Theory in archaeology: a world perspective, London: Routledge, 1994, pp. 343–362.

[133]
Thomas, Julian, Time, culture and identity: an interpretative archaeology. London: Routledge, 1996.

[134]
C. Tilley, ‘Interpreting material culture’, in The meanings of things: material culture and symbolic expression, vol. One world archaeology, London: Routledge, 1989, pp. 185–194.

[135]
Tilley, Christopher Y., Interpretative archaeology, vol. Explorations in anthropology. New York: Berg, 1992.

[136]
B. G. Trigger, ‘Post‐processual developments in Anglo‐American archaeology’, Norwegian Archaeological Review, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 65–76, Jan. 1991.

[137]
B. G. Trigger, ‘Hyper-relativism, responsibility and the Social Sciences’, in Artifacts & ideas: essays in archaeology, London: Transaction, 2003, pp. 113–131.

[138]
B. G. Trigger, ‘Chapter 9 and 10’, in A history of archaeological thought, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006 [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813016

[139]
Michelle Hegmon, ‘Setting Theoretical Egos Aside: Issues and Theory in North American Archaeology’, American Antiquity, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 213–243, 2003.

[140]
M. Johnson, ‘On the nature of theoretical archaeology and archaeological theory’, Archaeological Dialogues, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 117–132, 2006, doi: 10.1017/S138020380621208X.

[141]
K. Kristiansen, ‘Genes versus agents: A discussion of the widening theoretical gap in archaeology’, Archaeological Dialogues, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 77–99, 2004, doi: 10.1017/S1380203805211509.

[142]
J. C. Barrett, ‘The material constitution of humanness’, Archaeological Dialogues, vol. 21, no. 01, pp. 65–74, Jun. 2014, doi: 10.1017/S1380203814000105.

[143]
A. Bentley and H. D. G. Maschner, ‘Complexity theory’, in Handbook of archaeological theories, Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2008, pp. 245–270.

[144]
Bintliff, J. L. and Pearce, Mark, The death of archaeological theory? Oakville: Oxbow Books, 2011 [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvh1dk87

[145]
Cochrane, Ethan E. and Gardner, Andrew, Evolutionary and interpretive archaeologies: a dialogue, vol. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London. Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast, 2011.

[146]
Funari, Pedro Paulo A., Zarankin, Andrés, and Stovel, Emily, Global archaeological theory: contextual voices and contemporary thoughts. London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2005.

[147]
Zarankin, Andrés, Salerno, Melisa A., and Funari, Pedro Paulo A., Memories from darkness: archaeology of repression and resistance in Latin America, vol. Contributions to global historical archaeology. London: Springer, 2009 [Online]. Available: https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1007/978-1-4419-0679-3

[148]
B. Gaydarska, ‘A brief history of TAG’, Antiquity, vol. 83, no. 322, pp. 1152–1162, 2009.

[149]
Michelle Hegmon, ‘No More Theory Wars: A Response to Moss’, American Antiquity, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 588–590, 2005.

[150]
I. Hodder, ‘Introduction: contemporary theoretical debate in archaeology’, in Archaeological theory today, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Polity, 2012, pp. 1–14.

[151]
Lydon, Jane and Rizvi, Uzma Z., Handbook of postcolonial archaeology, vol. World Archaeological Congress research handbooks in archaeology. Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press, 2010 [Online]. Available: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucl/detail.action?docID=911816

[152]
Knappett, Carl, An archaeology of interaction: network perspectives on material culture and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011 [Online]. Available: https://academic.oup.com/book/1407

[153]
Mizoguchi, Kōji, Archaeology, society and identity in modern Japan, vol. Cambridge studies in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

[154]
Madonna L. Moss, ‘Rifts in the Theoretical Landscape of Archaeology in the United States: A Comment on Hegmon and Watkins’, American Antiquity, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 581–587, 2005.

[155]
B. Olsen, ‘Symmetical archaeology’, in Archaeological theory today, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Polity, 2012, pp. 208–228.

[156]
T. R. Pauketat, ‘Practice and history in archaeology: An emerging paradigm’, Anthropological Theory, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 73–98, Mar. 2001, doi: 10.1177/146349960100100105.

[157]
R. W. Preucel and S. A. Mrozowski, ‘The new pragmatism’, in Contemporary archaeology in theory: the new pragmatism, 2nd ed., Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, pp. 3–49.

[158]
J. Robb and T. R. Pauketat, Big histories, human lives: tackling problems of scale in archaeology, vol. School for Advanced Research advanced seminar series. Santa Fe, N.M.: School for Advanced Research Press, 2013.

[159]
Michael Shanks, ‘Symmetrical Archaeology’, World Archaeology, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 589–596, 2007.

[160]
Smith, Laurajane, Archaeological theory and the politics of cultural heritage. London: Routledge, 2004.

[161]
M. Spriggs, ‘Ethnographic parallels and the denial of history’, World Archaeology, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 538–552, 2008, doi: 10.1080/00438240802453161.

[162]
Bruce G. Trigger, ‘Archaeology and Epistemology: Dialoguing across the Darwinian Chasm’, American Journal of Archaeology, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 1–34, 1998.

[163]
Ucko, Peter J. and Theoretical Archaeology Group, Theory in archaeology: a world perspective. London: Routledge, 1994.

[164]
C. M. Watts, Relational archaeologies: humans, animals, things. London: Routledge, 2013.

[165]
T. Webmoor and C. L. Witmore, ‘Things Are Us! A Commentary on Human/Things Relations under the Banner of a “Social” Archaeology’, Norwegian Archaeological Review, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 53–70, Jun. 2008, doi: 10.1080/00293650701698423.

[166]
G. Andrews, J. C. Barrett, and J. S. C. Lewis, ‘Interpretation not record: The practice of archaeology’, Antiquity, vol. 74, no. 285, pp. 525–530, 2000.

[167]
I. Hodder, ‘Towards a reflexive method’, in The archaeological process: an introduction, Oxford: Blackwell, 1999, pp. 80–104.

[168]
G. Lucas, ‘Introduction: archaeology and the field’, in Critical approaches to fieldwork: contemporary and historical archaeological practice, London: Routledge, 2001, pp. 1–17.

[169]
S. Roskams, ‘Future prospects’, in Excavation, vol. Cambridge manuals in archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 267–290.

[170]
B. Bender, C. Y. Tilley, E. Anderson, and S. Hamilton, ‘Chapters 1 and 3’, in Stone worlds: narrative and reflexivity in landscape archaeology, vol. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press, 2007 [Online]. Available: https://ucl.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/view/action/uresolver.do?operation=resolveService&package_service_id=14615901840004761&institutionId=4761&customerId=4760&VE=true

[171]
A. Berggren and I. Hodder, ‘Social practice, method and some problems of field archaeology’, American Antiquity, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 421–434, 2003.

[172]
L. R. Binford, ‘A consideration of archaeological research design’, American Antiquity, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 425–441, 1964.

[173]
A. Chadwick, ‘Post-processualism, professionalization and archaeological methodologies. Towards reflexive and radical practice’, Archaeological Dialogues, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 97–117, 2003, doi: 10.1017/S1380203803001107.

[174]
Collis, John, Digging up the past: an introduction to archaeological excavation. Stroud: Sutton, 2001.

[175]
J. Conolly, ‘Catalhoyuk and the archaeological object’, in Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük : by members of the Çatalhöyük team, vol. McDonald Institute monographs, Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2000, pp. 51–56 [Online]. Available: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=533279b1-a506-e811-80cd-005056af4099

[176]
Edgeworth, Matt, Acts of discovery: an ethnography of archaeological practice, vol. BAR international series. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2003.

[177]
Edgeworth, Matt, Ethnographies of archaeological practice: cultural encounters, material transformations, vol. Worlds of archaeology series. Lanham: Altamira Press, 2006.

[178]
J. M. Gero, ‘Archaeological practice and gendered encounters with field data’, in Gender and archaeology, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996, pp. 251–280.

[179]
S. Hamilton, ‘Lost in translation? A comment on the excavation report’, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, vol. 10, pp. 1–8, Aug. 1999, doi: 10.5334/pia.140.

[180]
S. Hamilton, R. Whitehouse, K. Brown, P. Combes, E. Herring, and M. S. Thomas, ‘Phenomenology in Practice: Towards a Methodology for a `Subjective’ Approach’, European Journal of Archaeology, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 31–71, Apr. 2006, doi: 10.1177/1461957107077704.

[181]
F. A. Hassan, ‘Beyond the surface: Comments on Hodder’s “reflexive excavation methodology”’, Antiquity, vol. 71, no. 274, pp. 1020–1025, 1997.

[182]
I. Hodder, ‘Writing archaeology: site reports in context’, in Theory and practice in archaeology, vol. Material cultures, London: Routledge, 1992, pp. 263–274.

[183]
I. Hodder, ‘Always momentary, fluid and flexible: Towards a reflexive excavation methodology’, Antiquity, vol. 71, no. 273, pp. 691–700, 1997.

[184]
Jones, Andrew, Archaeological theory and scientific practice, vol. Topics in contemporary archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

[185]
G. Lucas, Understanding the archaeological record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012 [Online]. Available: https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1017/CBO9780511845772

[186]
Moshenska, Gabriel and Dhanjal, Sarah, Community archaeology: themes, methods and practices. Oxford: Oxbow, 2012 [Online]. Available: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucl/detail.action?docID=1154191

[187]
Papaconstantinou, Demetra, Deconstructing context: a critical approach to archaeological practice. Oxford: Oxbow, 2006.

[188]
M. Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina, ‘Stonehenge for the ancestors: The stones pass on the message’, Antiquity, vol. 72, no. 276, pp. 308–326, 1998.

[189]
G. Scarre and R. Coningham, Appropriating the past: philosophical perspectives on the practice of archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013 [Online]. Available: https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1017/CBO9781139026932

[190]
Quirke, Stephen, Hidden hands: Egyptian workforces in Petrie excavation archives, 1880-1924, vol. Duckworth egyptology. London: Gerald Duckworth, 2010.

[191]
M. Shanks and R. H. McGuire, ‘The craft of archaeology’, American Antiquity, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 75–88, 1996.

[192]
C. Tilley, ‘Excavation as Theatre’, Antiquity, vol. 63, no. 239, pp. 275–280, 1989.

[193]
M. Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina, ‘Stonehenge for the ancestors: The stones pass on the message’, Antiquity, vol. 72, no. 276, pp. 308–326, 1998.

[194]
M. Parker Pearson et. al., ‘Who was buried at Stonehenge?’, Antiquity, vol. 83, no. 319, pp. 23–39, 2009.

[195]
M. P. Pearson, ‘Materializing Stonehenge: The Stonehenge Riverside Project and New Discoveries’, Journal of Material Culture, vol. 11, no. 1–2, pp. 227–261, Jul. 2006, doi: 10.1177/1359183506063024.

[196]
C. Renfrew, ‘Monuments, mobilization and social organisation in Neolithic Wessex’, in The explanation of culture change: models in prehistory, London: Duckworth, 1973, pp. 539–558.

[197]
Atkinson, R. J. C., Stonehenge, vol. A pelican book. Harmondsworth: Penquin Books in association with Hamish Hamilton, 1960.

[198]
B. Bender, ‘Theorising landscapes, and the prehistoric landscape of Stonehenge’, Man, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 735–755, 1992.

[199]
Bender, Barbara and Aitken, Paul, Stonehenge: making space, vol. Materializing culture. Oxford: Berg, 1998.

[200]
Bradley, Richard, The significance of monuments: on the shaping of human experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. London: Routledge, 1998.

[201]
Chippindale, Christopher, Stonehenge complete, New and Expanded [3rd] ed. [London]: Thames & Hudson, 2004.

[202]
Chippindale, Christopher, Who owns Stonehenge? London: Batsford, 1990.

[203]
Cleal, Rosamund, Walker, K. E., Montague, R., and English Heritage, Stonehenge in its landscape: twentieth-century excavations, vol. Archaeological report / English Heritage. London: English Heritage, 1995.

[204]
Renfrew, Colin, Cunliffe, Barry W., and British Academy, Science and Stonehenge, vol. Proceedings of the British Academy. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1997.

[205]
M. Parker Pearson et. al., ‘The age of Stonehenge’, Antiquity, vol. 81, no. 313, pp. 617–639, 2007.

[206]
M. Parker Pearson et. al., ‘Stonehenge, its river and its landscape: Unravelling the mysteries of a prehistoric sacred place’, Archäologischer Anzeiger: Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, vol. 1, pp. 237–258, 2006.

[207]
Richards, Julian C. and English Heritage, English Heritage book of Stonehenge. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd./ English Heritage, 1991.

[208]
Richards, Julian C., Allen, Mike, and English Heritage, The Stonehenge environs project, vol. Archaeological report. London: Historical Buildings & Monuments Commission for England, 1990.

[209]
S. James, ‘Roman archaeology: Crisis and revolution’, Antiquity, vol. 77, no. 295, pp. 178–184, 2003 [Online]. Available: http://search.proquest.com/docview/217561304?accountid=14511

[210]
R. Witcher, D. P. Tolia-Kelly, and R. Hingley, ‘Archaeologies of Landscape: Excavating the Materialities of Hadrian’s Wall’, Journal of Material Culture, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 105–128, Mar. 2010, doi: 10.1177/1359183510355228.

[211]
Andrén, Anders and Crozier, Alan, Between artifacts and texts: historical archaeology in global perspective, vol. Contributions to global historical archaeology. London: Plenum Press, 1998.

[212]
Dyson, Stephen L., In pursuit of ancient pasts: a history of classical archaeology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. London: Yale University Press, 2006 [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1npzcm

[213]
S. S. Frere, ‘Roman Britain since Haverfield and Richmond’, History and Archaeology Review, vol. 3, pp. 31–36, 1988.

[214]
A. Gardner, ‘Seeking a material turn: the artefactuality of the Roman Empire’, in TRAC 2002: proceedings of the twelfth annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference which took place at the University of Kent at Canterbury 5-6 April 2002, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2003, pp. 1–13.

[215]
Hingley, Richard, Roman officers and English gentlemen: the imperial origins of Roman archaeology. New York: Routledge, 2000.

[216]
R. Hingley, ‘Hadrian’s Wall in theory: pursuing new agendas’, in Understanding Hadrian’s Wall: papers from a conference held at South Shields, 3rd-5th November 2006, to mark the publication of the 14th edition of the Handbook to the Roman Wall, South Shields: Arbeia Society, 2008, pp. 25–28.

[217]
R. Hingley, ‘“The most ancient Boundary between England and Scotland”: Genealogies of the Roman Walls’, Classical Receptions Journal, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 25–43, May 2010, doi: 10.1093/crj/clq001.

[218]
I. Hodder, ‘Bridging the divide: a commentary on theoretical Roman archaeology’, in Theoretical Roman archaeology: first conference proceedings, vol. Wordwide archaeology series, Aldershot: Avebury, 1993, pp. xiii–xix.

[219]
Ian Hodder and Mark Hassall, ‘The Non-Random Spacing of Romano-British Walled Towns’, Man, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 391–407, 1971.

[220]
S. James, ‘Writing the Legions: The Development and Future of Roman Military Studies in Britain’, Archaeological Journal, vol. 159, no. 1, pp. 1–58, Jan. 2002, doi: 10.1080/00665983.2002.11020514.

[221]
James, Simon, Millett, Martin, Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, and Council for British Archaeology, Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda, vol. CBA research report. York: Council for British Archaeology, 2001.

[222]
M. H. Johnson, ‘Rethinking historical archaeology’, in Historical archaeology: back from the edge, vol. One world archaeology, New York: Routledge, 1999, pp. 23–36.

[223]
T. Moore, ‘Detribalizing the later prehistoric past: Concepts of tribes in Iron Age and Roman studies’, Journal of Social Archaeology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 334–360, Oct. 2011, doi: 10.1177/1469605311403861.

[224]
C. Nesbitt and D. Tolia-Kelly, ‘Hadrian’s Wall: Embodied archaeologies of the linear monument’, Journal of Social Archaeology, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 368–390, Sep. 2009, doi: 10.1177/1469605309338428.

[225]
Glenn R. Storey, ‘Archaeology and Roman Society: Integrating Textual and Archaeological Data’, Journal of Archaeological Research, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 203–248, 1999.

[226]
Mason, David J. P. and Symonds, Matthew F. A., Frontiers of knowledge: a research framework for Hadrian’s Wall, part of the Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage site. Durham: Durham County Council and Durham University, 2009.

[227]
Cooper, Nicholas, Webster, Jane, and University of Leicester, Roman imperialism: post-colonial perspectives, vol. Leicester archaeology monographs. Leicester: School of Archaeological Studies, University of Leicester, 1996.

[228]
T. Wilmott, ‘Collapse theory and the end of Birdoswald’, in Theoretical Roman archaeology: second conference proceedings, vol. Worldwide archaeology series, Aldershot: Avebury, 1995, pp. 59–69.

[229]
Wilmott, Tony and English Heritage, Hadrian’s Wall: archaeological research by English Heritage 1976-2000. Swindon: English Heritage, 2009.

[230]
R. Witcher, ‘The Fabulous Tales of the Common People, Part 1: Representing Hadrian’s Wall’, Public Archaeology, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 126–152, 2010, doi: 10.1179/146551810X12822101587138.

[231]
Greg Woolf, ‘The Present State and Future Scope of Roman Archaeology: A Comment’, American Journal of Archaeology, vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 417–428, 2004.

[232]
Tim Ingold, ‘The Temporality of the Landscape’, World Archaeology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 152–174, 1993 [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124811

[233]
G. Lucas, ‘Time and Archaeological Event’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 18, no. 01, pp. 59–65, Feb. 2008, doi: 10.1017/S095977430800005X.

[234]
H. Mytum, ‘Materiality and memory: an archaeological perspective on the popular adoption of linear time in Britain’, Antiquity, vol. 81, no. 312, pp. 381–396, 2007 [Online]. Available: http://search.proquest.com/docview/217581355?accountid=14511

[235]
B. Adam, ‘Perceptions of time’, in Companion encyclopedia of anthropology, [New ed.]., vol. Routledge world reference, London: Routledge, 2002, pp. 503–526 [Online]. Available: https://ucl-new-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/1klfcc3/TN_cdi_proquest_ebookcentral_EBC169490

[236]
Adam, Barbara, Timewatch: the social analysis of time. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995.

[237]
G. N. Bailey, ‘Concepts of Time in Quaternary Prehistory’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 12, pp. 165–192, 1983 [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155645

[238]
G. Bailey, ‘Time perspectives, palimpsests and the archaeology of time’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 198–223, Jun. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.jaa.2006.08.002.

[239]
Barrett, John C., Fragments from antiquity: an archaeology of social life in Britain, 2900-1200 BC, vol. Social archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.

[240]
Rosen, Ralph Mark and University of Pennsylvania, Time and temporality in the ancient world. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2004.

[241]
Bintliff, J. L., The Annales school and archaeology. London: Leicester University Press, 1991.

[242]
Borić, Dušan, Archaeology and memory. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2010.

[243]
Bradley, Richard, The past in prehistoric societies. London: Routledge, 2002.

[244]
A. Gardner, ‘Time and empire in the Roman world’, Journal of Social Archaeology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 145–166, Jun. 2012, doi: 10.1177/1469605312439971.

[245]
Gell, Alfred, The anthropology of time: cultural constructions of temporal maps and images, vol. Explorations in anthropology. Oxford: Berg, 1992.

[246]
Gosden, Chris, Social being and time. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.

[247]
Hannah, Robert, Time in antiquity, vol. Sciences of antiquity. Abingdon: Routledge, 2009.

[248]
J. Harding, ‘Rethinking the Great Divide: Long‐Term Structural History and the Temporality of Event’, Norwegian Archaeological Review, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 88–101, Nov. 2005, doi: 10.1080/00293650510032707.

[249]
Holdaway, Simon and Wandsnider, LuAnn, Time in archaeology: time perspectivism revisited. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2008 [Online]. Available: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucl/detail.action?docID=3443820

[250]
Karlsson, Håkan, It’s about time: the concept of time in archaeology. Göteborg: Bricoleur, 2001.

[251]
Redman, Charles L., Social archeology: beyond subsistence and dating, vol. Studies in archeology. New York: Academic Press, 1978.

[252]
Lucas, Gavin, The archaeology of time, vol. Themes in archaeology. London: Routledge, 2005.

[253]
Nancy D. Munn, ‘The Cultural Anthropology of Time: A Critical Essay’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 21, pp. 93–123, 1992 [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155982

[254]
Murray, Tim and World Archaeological Congress, Time and archaeology, vol. One world archaeology. London: Routledge, 1999.

[255]
G. Nanni, ‘Time, empire and resistance in settler-colonial Victoria’, Time & Society, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 5–33, Mar. 2011, doi: 10.1177/0961463X10369765.

[256]
M. Shanks and C. Tilley, ‘Abstract and Substantial Time’, Archaeological Review From Cambridge, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 32–41, 1987.

[257]
Mackenzie, Iain M., Archaeological theory: progress or posture?, vol. Worldwide archaeology series. Aldershot: Avebury, 1994.

[258]
Thomas, Julian, Time, culture and identity: an interpretative archaeology. New York: Routledge, 1996.

[259]
Van Dyke, Ruth and Alcock, Susan E., Archaeologies of memory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003.

[260]
A. Whittle, A. Bayliss, and F. Healy, ‘The Timing and Tempo of Change: Examples from the Fourth Millennium cal. BC in Southern England’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 18, no. 01, pp. 65–70, 2008, doi: 10.1017/S0959774308000061.

[261]
B. David and J. Thomas, ‘Landscape archaeology: Introduction’, in Handbook of landscape archaeology, vol. World Archaeological Congress research handbooks in archaeology, Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press, 2008, pp. 27–43 [Online]. Available: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315427737.ch1

[262]
S. Hamilton, ‘The ambiguity of landscape: discussing points of relatedness in concepts and methods’, in Evolutionary and interpretive archaeologies: a dialogue, vol. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast, 2011, pp. 263–280.

[263]
J. Thomas, ‘Archaeologies of place and landscape’, in Archaeological theory today, Rev. and Updated ed., Cambridge: Polity, 2012, pp. 165–186.

[264]
C. Y. Tilley, ‘Space, place, landscape and perception: phenomenological perspectives’, in A phenomenology of landscape: places, paths, and monuments, vol. Explorations in anthropology, Oxford: Berg, 1994, pp. 7–34.

[265]
W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp, ‘Archaeological landscapes: constructed, conceptualised, ideational’, in Archaeologies of landscape: contemporary perspectives, vol. Social archaeology, Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers, 1999, pp. 1–30.

[266]
J. Barrett, ‘The mythical landscapes of the British Iron Age’, in Archaeologies of landscape: contemporary perspectives, vol. Social archaeology, Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers, 1999, pp. 253–265.

[267]
B. Bender, ‘Theorising landscapes, and the prehistoric landscape of Stonehenge’, Man, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 735–755, 1992.

[268]
B. Bender, C. Y. Tilley, E. Anderson, and S. Hamilton, ‘Chapters 1 and 3’, in Stone worlds: narrative and reflexivity in landscape archaeology, vol. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press, 2007 [Online]. Available: https://ucl.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/view/action/uresolver.do?operation=resolveService&package_service_id=14615901840004761&institutionId=4761&customerId=4760&VE=true

[269]
B. Bender, S. Hamilton, and C. Tilley, ‘Leskernick: Stone Worlds; Alternative Narratives; Nested Landscapes.’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, vol. 63, pp. 147–178, 1997, doi: 10.1017/S0079497X00002413.

[270]
J. Brück, ‘Experiencing the past? The development of a phenomenological archaeology in British prehistory’, Archaeological Dialogues, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 45–72, Aug. 2005, doi: 10.1017/S1380203805001583.

[271]
Thomas, Julian and David, Bruno, Handbook of landscape archaeology, vol. World Archaeological Congress research handbooks in archaeology. Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press, 2008 [Online]. Available: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315427737.ch1

[272]
A. Fleming, ‘Phenomenology and the Megaliths of Wales: A Dreaming Too Far?’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 119–125, May 1999, doi: 10.1111/1468-0092.00074.

[273]
A. Fleming, ‘Post-processual landscape archaeology: A critique’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 267–280, 2006, doi: 10.1017/S0959774306000163.

[274]
D. Gheorghiu and G. Nash, Place as material culture: objects, geographies and the construction of time. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Pub, 2013.

[275]
S. Hamilton et al., ‘Quarried away: thinking about landscapes of megalithic construction on Rapa Nui (Easter Island)’, in Handbook of landscape archaeology, vol. World Archaeological Congress research handbooks in archaeology, Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press, 2008, pp. 176–186 [Online]. Available: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315427737.ch1

[276]
S. Hamilton, R. Whitehouse, K. Brown, P. Combes, E. Herring, and M. S. Thomas, ‘Phenomenology in Practice: Towards a Methodology for a `Subjective’ Approach’, European Journal of Archaeology, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 31–71, Apr. 2006, doi: 10.1177/1461957107077704.

[277]
Wagstaff, J. Malcolm, Landscape and culture: geographical and archaeological perspectives. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987.

[278]
T. Ingold, ‘The temporality of the landscape’, World Archaeology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 152–174, 1993.

[279]
M. Lake, ‘Viewing space’, World Archaeology, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1–3, 2007.

[280]
M. Llobera, ‘Exploring the topography of mind: GIS, social space and archaeology’, Antiquity, vol. 70, no. 269, pp. 612–622, 1996.

[281]
J. McGlade, ‘Archaeology and the evolution of cultural landscapes: towards an interdisciplinary agenda’, in The archaeology and anthropology of landscape: shaping your landscape, vol. One world archaeology, London: Routledge, 1999, pp. 458–482.

[282]
J. S. Thomas, ‘The politics of vision and the archaeologies of landscape’, in Landscape: politics and perspectives, vol. Explorations in anthropology, New York: Berg, 1993, pp. 19–48.

[283]
C. Tilley and W. Bennett, ‘An archaeology of super-natural places: the case of West Penwith’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 335–362, 2001.

[284]
C. Y. Tilley, ‘The powers of rocks: Topography and monument construction on Bodmin Moor’, World Archaeology, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 161–176, 1996.

[285]
C. Tilley, ‘Round Barrows and Dykes as Landscape Metaphors’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 185–203, Oct. 2004, doi: 10.1017/S0959774304000125.

[286]
C. Y. Tilley, ‘Phenomenological approaches to landscape archaeology’, in Handbook of landscape archaeology, vol. World Archaeological Congress research handbooks in archaeology, Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press, 2008, pp. 271–276 [Online]. Available: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315427737.ch1

[287]
P. J. Ucko and R. Layton, ‘Introduction: gazing on the landscape and encountering the environment’, in The archaeology and anthropology of landscape: shaping your landscape, vol. One world archaeology, London: Routledge, 1999, pp. 1–20.

[288]
D. Wheatley, ‘Cumulative viewshed analysis: a GIS-based method for investigating inter-visibility and its archaeological implication’, in Archaeology and geographical information systems: a European perspective, Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis, 1995, pp. 171–186.

[289]
L. R. Binford, ‘Interassemblage variability: The Mousterian and the functional argument’, in Working at archaeology, vol. Studies in archeology, New York: Academic Press, 1983, pp. 131–153 [Online]. Available: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk//secure/link?id=ffc747cb-4b36-e711-80c9-005056af4099

[290]
M.-A. Dobres and C. R. Hoffman, ‘Social agency and the dynamics of prehistoric technology’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 211–258, 1994.

[291]
M. B. Schiffer and J. M. Skibo, ‘The explanation of artifact variability’, American Antiquity, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 27–50, 1997.

[292]
B. SILLAR and M. S. TITE, ‘THE CHALLENGE OF ‘TECHNOLOGICAL CHOICES’FOR MATERIALS SCIENCE APPROACHES IN ARCHAEOLOGY’, Archaeometry, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 2–20, Feb. 2000, doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2000.tb00863.x.

[293]
D. E. Arnold, ‘Chapters 5, 8 and 9’, in Ceramic theory and cultural process, vol. New studies in archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

[294]
L. R. Binford, ‘Archaeology as anthropology’, American Antiquity, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 217–225, 1962.

[295]
Hastorf, Christine Ann and Conkey, Margaret Wright, The uses of style in archaeology, vol. New directions in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

[296]
M.-A. Dobres, ‘Social agency and practice: the heart and soul of technology’, in Technology and social agency: outlining a practice framework for archaeology, vol. Social archaeology, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000, pp. 127–163.

[297]
Hoffman, Christopher R. and Dobres, Marcia-Anne, The social dynamics of technology: practice, politics, and world views. London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1999.

[298]
J. E. Robb and M.-A. Dobres, ‘Agency in archaeology: Paradigm or Platitude?’, in Agency in archaeology, London: Routledge, 2000, pp. 3–17.

[299]
R. C. Dunnell, ‘Style and function: A fundamental dichotomy’, American Antiquity, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 192–202, 1978.

[300]
M. Hegmon, ‘Archaeological research on style’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 21, pp. 517–536, 1992, doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002505.

[301]
J. N. Hill and R. K. Evans, ‘A model for classification and typology’, in Models in archaeology, London: Methuen, 1972, pp. 231–273.

[302]
I. Hodder, ‘Material practice, symbolism and ideology’, in Theory and practice in archaeology, vol. Material cultures, London: Routledge, 1992, pp. 201–212 [Online]. Available: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk//secure/link?id=6f7f0b8f-5136-e711-80c9-005056af4099

[303]
Hodder, Ian, Symbols in action: ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture, vol. New studies in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

[304]
I. Hodder, ‘Post-modernism, post-structuralism and post-processual archaeology’, in The meanings of things: material culture and symbolic expression, vol. One world archaeology, London: Unwin Hyman, HarperCollins Academic, 1989, pp. 64–78.

[305]
C. Karlin and M. Julien, ‘Prehistoric technology: a cognitive science?’, in The ancient mind: elements of cognitive archaeology, vol. New directions in archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 152–163.

[306]
P. Lemonnier, ‘The study of material culture today: Toward an anthropology of technical systems’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 147–186, Jun. 1986, doi: 10.1016/0278-4165(86)90012-7.

[307]
M. Martinón-Torres, ‘Chaîne Opératoire: The concept and its aplications within the study of technology’, Gallaecia, vol. 21, pp. 29–43, 2002 [Online]. Available: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=fb4bab91-db3d-ee11-8457-0050f2f06092

[308]
M. C. Nelson, ‘The study of technological organization’, Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3, pp. 57–100, 1991.

[309]
B. Pfaffenberger, ‘Social Anthropology of Technology’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 491–516, Oct. 1992, doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002423.

[310]
James R. Sackett, ‘The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: A General Model’, American Antiquity, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 369–380, 1977.

[311]
N. Schlanger , ‘Mindful technology: unleashing the Chaine operatoire for an archaeology of mind’, in The ancient mind: elements of cognitive archaeology, vol. New directions in archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 143–151.

[312]
F. Sigault, ‘Technology’, in Companion encyclopedia of anthropology, [New ed.]., vol. Routledge world reference, London: Routledge, 2002, pp. 420–459 [Online]. Available: https://ucl-new-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/1klfcc3/TN_cdi_proquest_ebookcentral_EBC169490

[313]
A. Sinclair, ‘Constellations of knowledge: human agency and material affordance in lithic technology’, in Agency in archaeology, London: Routledge, 2000, pp. 196–212.

[314]
Tilley, Christopher Y., Metaphor and material culture, vol. Social archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999.

[315]
S. van der Leeuw, ‘Dust to dust: a transformational view of the ceramic cycle’, in The many dimensions of pottery: ceramics in archaeology and anthropology, vol. Cingula, Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam, 1984, pp. 709–733.

[316]
P. Wiessner, ‘Style and changing relations between the individual and society’, in The meanings of things: material culture and symbolic expression, vol. One world archaeology, London: Unwin Hyman, HarperCollins Academic, 1989, pp. 56–63.

[317]
H. M. Wobst, ‘Stylistic behavior ad information exchange’, in For the director: research essays in honor of James B. Griffin, vol. Anthropological papers, Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, 1977, pp. 317–342.

[318]
H. M. Wobst, ‘Style in archaeology or archaeologists in style’, in Material meanings: critical approaches to the interpretation of material culture, vol. Foundations of archaeological inquiry, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1999, pp. 118–132.

[319]
Chris Gosden, ‘What Do Objects Want?’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 193–211, 2005.

[320]
J. E. Robb, ‘The archaeology of symbols’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 27, pp. 329–346, 1998, doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.27.1.329.

[321]
B. Sillar, ‘The Social Agency of Things? Animism and Materiality in the Andes’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 19, no. 03, pp. 367–377, Oct. 2009, doi: 10.1017/S0959774309000559.

[322]
A. Bentley , ‘“Style versus function” 30 years on’, in Evolutionary and interpretive archaeologies: a dialogue, vol. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast, 2011, pp. 83–104.

[323]
Chilton, Elizabeth S., Material meanings: critical approaches to the interpretation of material culture, vol. Foundations of archaeological inquiry. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1999.

[324]
E. E. Cochrane, ‘Style, function and systematic empiricism: the conflation of process and pattern’, in Style and function: conceptual issues in evolutionary archaeology, London: Bergin & Garvey, 2001, pp. 183–202.

[325]
Renfrew, Colin, DeMarrais, Elizabeth, and Gosden, Chris, Rethinking materiality: the engagement of mind with the material world, vol. McDonald Institute monographs. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2004.

[326]
L. Ferguson, ‘Struggling with pots in colonial South Carolina’, in The archaeology of inequality, vol. Social archaeology, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 28–39.

[327]
C. Gosden and Y. Marshall, ‘The cultural biography of objects’, World Archaeology, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 169–178, 1999.

[328]
I. Hodder, ‘Human-thing entanglement: towards an integrated archaeological perspective’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 154–177, 2011, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9655.2010.01674.x.

[329]
I. Hodder, Entangled: an archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.

[330]
T. Ingold, ‘Materials against materiality’, Archaeological Dialogues, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2007, doi: 10.1017/S1380203807002127.

[331]
Thomas, Julian, Jorge, Vítor Oliveira, and Theoretical Archaeology Group (England), Overcoming the modern invention of material culture: proceedings of the TAG session, Exeter 2006, vol. Journal of Iberian archaeology. Porto: ADECAP, 2007.

[332]
C. Knappett, ‘Photographs, Skeuomorphs and Marionettes: Some Thoughts on Mind, Agency and Object’, Journal of Material Culture, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 97–117, Mar. 2002, doi: 10.1177/1359183502007001307.

[333]
Knappett, Carl, Thinking through material culture: an interdisciplinary perspective, vol. Archaeology, culture, and society. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005.

[334]
C. Knappet, ‘Materiality’, in Archaeological theory today, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Polity, 2012, pp. 188–207.

[335]
Knappett, Carl and Malafouris, Lambros, Material agency: towards a non-anthropocentric approach. New York: Springer, 2008.

[336]
R. Layton, ‘Structuralism and semiotics’, in Handbook of material culture, London: SAGE, 2006, pp. 29–42 [Online]. Available: http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=UCL&isbn=9781446206430

[337]
Meskell, Lynn, Object worlds in ancient Egypt: material biographies past and present, vol. Materializing culture. Oxford: Berg, 2004.

[338]
Meskell, Lynn, Archaeologies of materiality. Malden, Mass: Blackwell, 2006.

[339]
D. Miller, ‘Artefacts and the meaning of things’, in Companion encyclopedia of anthropology, [New ed.]., vol. Routledge world reference, London: Routledge, 2002, pp. 396–419 [Online]. Available: https://ucl-new-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/1klfcc3/TN_cdi_proquest_ebookcentral_EBC169490

[340]
Miller, Daniel, Materiality. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2005.

[341]
M. J. O’Brien, ‘Style, function, transmission: an introduction’, in Style, function, transmission: evolutionary archaeological perspectives, vol. Foundations of archaeological inquiry, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2003, pp. 1–32.

[342]
B. Olsen, ‘Material culture after text: re‐membering things’, Norwegian Archaeological Review, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 87–104, Oct. 2003, doi: 10.1080/00293650310000650.

[343]
B. Olsen, Archaeology: the discipline of things. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012.

[344]
R. Preucel and A. Bauer, ‘Archaeological Pragmatics’, Norwegian Archaeological Review, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 85–96, 2001, doi: 10.1080/00293650127469.

[345]
Preucel, Robert W., Archaeological semiotics, vol. Social archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.

[346]
M. L. S. Sørensen, ‘Reading Dress: The Construction of Social Categories and Identities in Bronze Age Europe’, Journal of European Archaeology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 93–114, 1997, doi: 10.1179/096576697800703656.

[347]
T. Taylor, ‘Materiality’, in Handbook of archaeological theories, Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2008, pp. 297–320 [Online]. Available: https://www.vlebooks.com/Product/Index/156042?page=0&startBookmarkId=-1

[348]
J. Thomas, ‘Culture and identity’, in Companion encyclopedia of archaeology, London: Routledge, 1999, pp. 431–469.

[349]
Thomas, Julian, Archaeology and modernity. London: Routledge, 2004.

[350]
Bentley, R. Alexander, Maschner, Herbert D. G., and Chippindale, Christopher, Handbook of archaeological theories. Lanham, Md: AltaMira Press, 2008 [Online]. Available: https://www.dawsonera.com/guard/protected/dawson.jsp?name=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&dest=http://www.dawsonera.com/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractView/S9780759113602

[351]
Steven Mithen, ‘Understanding Mind and Culture: Evolutionary Psychology or Social Anthropology?’, Anthropology Today, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 3–7, 1995 [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2783517?origin=crossref

[352]
Shennan, Stephen, Genes, memes and human history: Darwinian archaeology and cultural evolution. London: Thames & Hudson, 2002.

[353]
R. L. Bettinger, Hunter-gatherers: archaeological and evolutionary theory, vol. Interdisciplinary contributions to archaeology. New York: Plenum Press, 1991.

[354]
J. L. Boone and E. A. Smith, ‘Is It Evolution Yet? A Critique of Evolutionary Archaeology’, Current Anthropology, vol. 39, no. S1, pp. S141–S174, Jun. 1998, doi: 10.1086/204693.

[355]
Cochrane, Ethan E. and Gardner, Andrew, Evolutionary and interpretive archaeologies: a dialogue, vol. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London. Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast, 2011.

[356]
T. E. Currie and R. Mace, ‘Mode and tempo in the evolution of socio-political organization: reconciling “Darwinian” and “Spencerian” evolutionary approaches in anthropology’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 366, no. 1567, pp. 1108–1117, Feb. 2011, doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0318.

[357]
K. Kristiansen, ‘Genes versus agents. A discussion of the widening theoretical gap in archaeology’, Archaeological Dialogues, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 77–99, Dec. 2004, doi: 10.1017/S1380203805211509.

[358]
S. J. Mithen, The prehistory of the mind: a search for the origins of art, religion and science. London: Thames & Hudson, 1996.

[359]
S. J. Mithen, Thoughtful foragers: a study of prehistoric decision making, vol. New studies in archaeology. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

[360]
Richerson, Peter J. and Boyd, Robert, Not by genes alone: how culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.

[361]
P. Rowley-Conwy, R. Layton, and C. Panter-Brick, Hunter-gatherers: an interdisciplinary perspective, vol. The Biosocial Society symposium series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

[362]
B. Winterhalder, D. J. Kennett, M. N. Grote, and J. Bartruff, ‘Ideal free settlement of California’s Northern Channel Islands’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 469–490, Dec. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.jaa.2010.07.001.

[363]
Alex Mesoudi, Andrew Whiten and Kevin N. Laland, ‘Perspective: Is Human Cultural Evolution Darwinian? Evidence Reviewed from the Perspective of “The Origin of Species”’, Evolution, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2004 [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3449291

[364]
S. Shennan, ‘Descent with modification and the archaeological record’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 366, no. 1567, pp. 1070–1079, Apr. 2011, doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0380.

[365]
S. Shennan, ‘Evolution in Archaeology’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 75–91, Oct. 2008, doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085153.

[366]
C. Andersson, ‘Paleolithic Punctuations and Equilibria: Did Retention Rather Than Invention Limit Technological Evolution?’, PaleoAnthropology, pp. 243–259, 2011 [Online]. Available: http://www.paleoanthro.org/journal/volumes/2011/

[367]
Aunger, Robert, Darwinizing culture: the status of memetics as a science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

[368]
R. Alexander Bentley, Matthew W. Hahn and Stephen J. Shennan, ‘Random Drift and Culture Change’, Proceedings: Biological Sciences, vol. 271, no. 1547, pp. 1443–1450, 2004 [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4142981

[369]
Maschner, Herbert D. G., Chippindale, Christopher, and Bentley, R. Alexander, Handbook of archaeological theories. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2008.

[370]
Boyd, Robert and Richerson, Peter J., Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.

[371]
Mace, Ruth, Holden, Clare Janaki, and Shennan, Stephen, The evolution of cultural diversity: a phylogenetic approach. London: UCL Press, 2005.

[372]
F. Coward, S. Shennan, S. Colledge, J. Conolly, and M. Collard, ‘The spread of Neolithic plant economies from the Near East to northwest Europe: a phylogenetic analysis’, Journal of Archaeological Science, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 42–56, Jan. 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2007.02.022.

[373]
Lipo, Carl P. and Society for American Archaeology, Mapping our ancestors: phylogenetic approaches in anthropology and prehistory. New Brunswick, N.J.: Aldine Transaction, 2006.

[374]
Shennan, Stephen, Pattern and process in cultural evolution, vol. Origins of human behavior and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009.

[375]
R. L. Lyman and M. J. O’Brien, ‘Measuring and Explaining Change in Artifact Variation with Clade-Diversity Diagrams’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 39–74, Mar. 2000, doi: 10.1006/jaar.1999.0339.

[376]
A. Powell, S. Shennan, and M. G. Thomas, ‘Late Pleistocene Demography and the Appearance of Modern Human Behavior’, Science, vol. 324, no. 5932, pp. 1298–1301, Jun. 2009, doi: 10.1126/science.1170165.

[377]
P. J. Richerson and R. Boyd, Not by genes alone: how culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.

[378]
Shennan, Stephen, Genes, memes and human history: Darwinian archaeology and cultural evolution. London: Thames & Hudson, 2002.

[379]
M.-A. Dobres and J. E. Robb, ‘Agency in archaeology: Paradigm or platitude?’, in Agency in archaeology, London: Routledge, 2000, pp. 3–17.

[380]
J. L. Dornan, ‘Agency and archaeology: Past, present and future directions’, Journal of archaeological method and theory, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 303–329, 2002, doi: 10.1023/A:1021318432161.

[381]
A. Gardner, ‘Agency’, in Handbook of archaeological theories, Lanham, Md: AltaMira Press, 2008, pp. 95–108 [Online]. Available: https://www.vlebooks.com/Product/Index/156042?page=0&startBookmarkId=-1

[382]
J. C. Barrett , ‘Agency, the duality of structure and the problem of the archaeological record’, in Archaeological theory today, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Polity, 2012, pp. 141–164.

[383]
E. M. Brumfiel, ‘On the archaeology of choice: agency studies as a research strategem’, in Agency in archaeology, London: Routledge, 2000, pp. 249–255.

[384]
P. Cornell and F. Fahlander, ‘Microarchaeology, materiality and social practice’, Current Swedish Archaeology, vol. 10, pp. 21–38, 2002.

[385]
Dobres, Marcia-Anne, Technology and social agency: outlining a practice framework for archaeology, vol. Social archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000.

[386]
J. Englehardt, Agency in ancient writing. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2013.

[387]
K. J. Fewster, ‘The Role of Agency and Material Culture in Remembering and Forgetting: An Ethnoarchaeological Case Study from Central Spain’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. 20, no. 1, Jun. 2006, doi: 10.1558//jmea.2007.v20i1.89.

[388]
K. V. Flannery, ‘Process and Agency in Early State Formation’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 3–21, 1999, doi: 10.1017/S0959774300015183.

[389]
Gardner, Andrew, An archaeology of identity: soldiers and society in late Roman Britain, vol. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London. Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press, 2007 [Online]. Available: https://www-taylorfrancis-com.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/books/mono/10.4324/9781315435091/archaeology-identity-andrew-gardner

[390]
A. Gardner, ‘Action and structure in interpretive archaeologies’, in Evolutionary and interpretive archaeologies: a dialogue, vol. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast, 2011, pp. 63–82.

[391]
P. Graves-Brown, ‘In search of the watchmaker: attribution of agency in natural and cultural selection’, in Darwinian archaeologies, vol. Interdisciplinary contributions to archaeology, London: Plenum Press, 1996, pp. 165–181.

[392]
M. H. Johnson, ‘Conceptions of agency in archaeological interpretation’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 189–211, Jun. 1989, doi: 10.1016/0278-4165(89)90024-X.

[393]
A. B. Knapp and P. van Dommelen, ‘Past Practices: Rethinking Individuals and Agents in Archaeology’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 18, no. 01, pp. 15–34, Feb. 2008, doi: 10.1017/S0959774308000024.

[394]
Kent G. Lightfoot, Antoinette Martinez and Ann M. Schiff, ‘Daily Practice and Material Culture in Pluralistic Social Settings: An Archaeological Study of Culture Change and Persistence from Fort Ross, California’, American Antiquity, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 199–222, 1998.

[395]
G. MacGregor, ‘Post-processual archaeology: the hidden agenda of the secret agent’, in Archaeological theory: progress or posture?, vol. Worldwide archaeology series, Aldershot: Avebury, 1994, pp. 79–91.

[396]
R. A. Bentley, H. D. G. Maschner, and C. Chippindale, ‘R. McGuire’, in Handbook of archaeological theories, Lanham, Md: AltaMira Press, 2008, pp. 73–93 [Online]. Available: https://www.vlebooks.com/Product/Index/156042?page=0&startBookmarkId=-1

[397]
Meskell, Lynn and Joyce, Rosemary A., Embodied lives: figuring ancient Maya and Egyptian experience. London: Routledge, 2003.

[398]
Meskell, Lynn, Archaeologies of social life: age, sex, class et cetera in ancient Egypt, vol. Social archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.

[399]
D. Miller and C. Y. Tilley, ‘Ideology, power and prehistory: An introduction’, in Ideology, power and prehistory, vol. New directions in archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984, pp. 1–15.

[400]
T. R. Pauketat, ‘Practice and history in archaeology: An emerging paradigm’, Anthropological Theory, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 73–98, Mar. 2001, doi: 10.1177/146349960100100105.

[401]
T. Patterson, ‘Social archaeology and Marxist social thought’, in A companion to social archaeology, vol. Social archaeology, Malden, MA.: Blackwell Pub. Ltd, 2004, pp. 66–81 [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470693605

[402]
M. Shanks and C. Y. Tilley, ‘The individual and the social’, in Social theory and archaeology, Cambridge: Polity in association with Blackwell, 1987, pp. 61–78.

[403]
S. J. Shennan, ‘An evolutionary perspective on the goals of archaeology’, in Evolutionary and interpretive archaeologies: a dialogue, vol. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast, 2011, pp. 325–344.

[404]
J. Thomas, ‘Humanism and the individual: chapter 6’, in Archaeology and modernity, London: Routledge, 2004, pp. 119–148.

[405]
C. Strauss, ‘Blaming for Columbine’, Current Anthropology, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 807–832, Dec. 2007, doi: 10.1086/520975.

[406]
Bruce G. Trigger, ‘Marxism in Contemporary Western Archaeology’, Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 5, pp. 159–200, 1993.

[407]
T. L. VanPool and C. S. VanPool, ‘Agency and evolution: the role of intended and unintended consequences of action’, in Essential tensions in archaeological method and theory, vol. Foundations of archaeological inquiry, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2003, pp. 89–113.

[408]
J. Brück, ‘Monuments, power and personhood in the British Neolithic’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 649–667, Dec. 2001, doi: 10.1111/1467-9655.00082.

[409]
C. Fowler, ‘Personhood and Social Relations in the British Neolithic with a Study from the Isle of Man’, Journal of Material Culture, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 137–163, Jul. 2001, doi: 10.1177/135918350100600202.

[410]
S. Jones, ‘Discourses of identity in the interpretation of the past’, in Interpretive archaeology: a reader, London: Leicester University Press, 2000, pp. 445–457.

[411]
R. A. Joyce, ‘Archaeology of the Body’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 139–158, Oct. 2005, doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143729.

[412]
M. Carrithers, S. Collins, and S. Lukes, Eds., The category of the person: anthropology, philosophy, history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

[413]
Casella, Eleanor Conlin and Fowler, Chris, The archaeology of plural and changing identities: beyond identification. London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 2005.

[414]
Díaz-Andreu García, Margarita, The archaeology of identity: approaches to gender, age, status, ethnicity and religion. London: Routledge, 2005.

[415]
Geoff Emberling, ‘Ethnicity in Complex Societies: Archaeological Perspectives’, Journal of Archaeological Research, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 295–344, 1997.

[416]
Fowler, Chris, The archaeology of personhood: an anthropological approach, vol. Themes in archaeology. London: Routledge, 2004.

[417]
C. Fowler, ‘The individual, the subject and archaeological interpretation: reading Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler’, in Philosophy and archaeological practice: perspectives for the 21st century, Göteborg: Bricoleur Press, 2000, pp. 107–122.

[418]
Gardner, Andrew, An archaeology of identity: soldiers and society in late Roman Britain, vol. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London. Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press, 2007 [Online]. Available: https://www-taylorfrancis-com.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/books/mono/10.4324/9781315435091/archaeology-identity-andrew-gardner

[419]
Hales, Shelley and Hodos, Tamar, Material culture and social identities in the ancient world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

[420]
Jones, S., The archaeology of ethnicity: constructing identities in the past and present. London: Routledge, 1997.

[421]
S. Jones, ‘Ethnicity: theoretical approaches, methodological implications’, in Handbook of archaeological theories, Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2008, pp. 321–333.

[422]
A. B. Knapp and L. Meskell, ‘Bodies of Evidence on Prehistoric Cyprus’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 7, no. 02, pp. 183–204, 1997, doi: 10.1017/S0959774300001931.

[423]
Meskell, Lynn, Archaeologies of social life: age, sex, class et cetera in ancient Egypt, vol. Social archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.

[424]
Meskell, Lynn and Joyce, Rosemary A., Embodied lives: figuring ancient Maya and Egyptian experience. London: Routledge, 2003.

[425]
L. Meskell, ‘Archaeologies of identity’, in Archaeological theory today, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Polity, 2012, pp. 187–213.

[426]
Pluciennik, Mark, Tarlow, Sarah, and Hamilakis, Yannis, Thinking through the body: archaeologies of corporeality. London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2002.

[427]
Rautman, Alison E. and Gender and Archaeology Conference, Reading the body: representations and remains in the archaeological record, vol. Regendering the past. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000.

[428]
Ross, Jennifer C. and Steadman, Sharon R., Agency and identity in the ancient Near East: new paths forward, vol. Approaches to anthropological archaeology. London: Equinox, 2010.

[429]
Smith, Stuart Tyson, Wretched Kush: ethnic identities and boudaries in Egypt’s Nubian empire. London: Routledge, 2003.

[430]
Sofaer, Joanna R., The body as material culture: a theoretical osteoarchaeology, vol. Topics in contemporary archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006 [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816666

[431]
Stark, Miriam T., The archaeology of social boundaries, vol. Smithsonian series in archaeological inquiry. London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1998.

[432]
J. Thomas, ‘Culture and identity’, in Companion encyclopedia of archaeology, London: Routledge, 1999, pp. 431–469.

[433]
J. Thomas, ‘Chapter 6’, in Archaeology and modernity, London: Routledge, 2004.

[434]
R. Whitehouse, ‘Cultural and biological approaches to the body in archaeology: can they be reconciled?" ’, in Evolutionary and interpretive archaeologies: a dialogue, vol. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast, 2011, pp. 227–244.

[435]
J. Whitley, ‘Homer’s Entangled Objects: Narrative, Agency and Personhood In and Out of Iron Age Texts’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 23, no. 03, pp. 395–416, Oct. 2013, doi: 10.1017/S095977431300053X.

[436]
D. Wilkinson, ‘The Emperor’s New Body: Personhood, Ontology and the Inka Sovereign’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 23, no. 03, pp. 417–432, Oct. 2013, doi: 10.1017/S0959774313000541.

[437]
T. Yates, ‘Frameworks for an archaeology of the body’, in Interpretative archaeology, vol. Explorations in anthropology, New York: Berg, 1992, pp. 31–72.

[438]
M. W. Conkey and J. M. Gero, ‘Programme to Practice: Gender and Feminism in Archaeology’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 411–437, Oct. 1997, doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.411.

[439]
R. Whitehouse, ‘Feminism and archaeology: An awkward relationship’, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, vol. 9, pp. 1–7, 1998.

[440]
A. Wylie, ‘The interplay of evidential constraints and political interests: Recent archaeological research on gender’, American Antiquity, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 15–35, 1992.

[441]
Carr, Lydia, Tessa Verney Wheeler: women and archaeology before World War Two. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

[442]
Margaret W. Conkey, ‘Questioning Theory: Is There a Gender of Theory in Archaeology?’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 285–310, 2007.

[443]
M. W. Conkey and J. D. Spector, ‘Archaeology and the Study of Gender’, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 7, pp. 1–38, 1984.

[444]
T. A. Dowson, ‘Homosexuality, queer theory and archaeology’, in Interpretive archaeology: a reader, London: Leicester University Press, 2000, pp. 283–289.

[445]
E. Engelstad, ‘Images of power and contradiction: Feminist theory and post-processual archaeology’, Antiquity, vol. 65, no. 248, pp. 502–514, 1991.

[446]
P. L. Geller, ‘Identity and Difference: Complicating Gender in Archaeology’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Oct. 2009, doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164414.

[447]
R. Gilchrist, ‘Archaeology and the life course: a time and age for gender’, in A companion to social archaeology, vol. Social archaeology, Malden, MA.: Blackwell Pub. Ltd, 2004, pp. 142–160 [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470693605

[448]
R. Gilchrist, ‘Women’s archaeology? Political feminism, gender theory and historical revision’, Antiquity, vol. 65, no. 248, pp. 495–501, 1991.

[449]
S. Hamilton, R. Whitehouse, and K. I. Wright, ‘Introduction and section 1’, in Archaeology and women: ancient & modern issues, vol. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press, 2007, pp. 13–40.

[450]
C. Hastorf, ‘Gender, space and food in prehistory’, in Engendering archaeology: women and prehistory, vol. Social archaeology, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 132–159.

[451]
K. Hays-Gilpin, ‘Gender’, in Handbook of archaeological theories, Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2008, pp. 335–349 [Online]. Available: https://www.vlebooks.com/Product/Index/156042?page=0&startBookmarkId=-1

[452]
E. Hill, ‘Gender-informed archaeology: The priority of definition, the use of analogy, and the multivariate approach’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 99–128, Mar. 1998, doi: 10.1007/BF02428417.

[453]
R. Joyce, ‘Embodied subjectivity: gender, feminity, masculinity, sexuality’, in A companion to social archaeology, vol. Social archaeology, Malden, MA.: Blackwell Pub. Ltd, 2004, pp. 82–95 [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470693605

[454]
H. L. Moore, ‘Bodies on the move: gender, power and material culture’, in A passion for difference: essays in anthropology and gender, Cambridge: Polity, 1994, pp. 71–85.

[455]
Nelson, Sarah M., Handbook of gender in archaeology, vol. Gender and archaeology series. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2006.

[456]
R. Pope, ‘Processual archaeology and gender politics. The loss of innocence’, Archaeological Dialogues, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 59–86, 2011, doi: 10.1017/S1380203811000134.

[457]
R. Pope, ‘Processual archaeology and gender politics. The loss of innocence’, Archaeological Dialogues, vol. 18, no. 01, pp. 59–86, Apr. 2011, doi: 10.1017/S1380203811000134.

[458]
E. Rega, ‘Age, gender and biological reality in the Early Bronze Age cemetery at Mokrin’, in Invisible people and processes: writing gender and childhood into European archaeology, London: Leicester University Press, 1996, pp. 229–247.

[459]
Sørensen, Marie Louise Stig, Gender archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000.

[460]
J. Spector, ‘What this awl means: towards a feminist archaeology’, in Engendering archaeology: women and prehistory, vol. Social archaeology, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 388–406.

[461]
P. Treherne, ‘The warrior’s beauty: the masculine body and self-identity in Bronze Age Europe’, Journal of European archaeology: journal of the European Association of Archaeologists, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 105–144, 1995.

[462]
R. Tringham, ‘Engendered places in prehistory’, in Interpretive archaeology: a reader, London: Leicester University Press, 2000, pp. 329–357.

[463]
A. Wylie, ‘Gender theory and the archaeological record: Why is there no archaeology of gender?’, in Engendering archaeology: women and prehistory, vol. Social archaeology, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 31–54.

[464]
Alison Wylie, ‘Doing Archaeology as a Feminist: Introduction’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 209–216, 2007.

[465]
P. L. Kohl, ‘Nationalism and archaeology: On the Constructions of Nations and the Reconstructions of the Remote Past’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 223–246, Oct. 1998, doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.27.1.223.

[466]
C. Y. Tilley, ‘Archaeology as socio-political action in the present’, in Critical traditions in contemporary archaeology: essays in the philosophy, history and socio-politics of archaeology, vol. New directions in archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 104–116.

[467]
B. G. Trigger, ‘Alternative archaeologies: Nationalist, colonialist, imperialist’, Man, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 355–370, 1984.

[468]
B. Arnold, ‘The past as propaganda: Totalitarian archaeology in Nazi Germany’, Antiquity, vol. 64, no. 244, pp. 464–478, 1990.

[469]
Banks, Iain, O’Sullivan, Jerry, Atkinson, John A., and Scottish Archaeological Forum, Nationalism and archaeology: Scottish Archaeological Forum. Glasgow: Cruithne Press, 1996.

[470]
Reinhard Bernbeck and Susan Pollock, ‘Ayodhya, Archaeology, and Identity’, Current Anthropology, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. S138–S142, 1996.

[471]
R. Bernbeck and S. Pollock, ‘The political economy of archaeological practice and the production of heritage in the Middle East’, in A companion to social archaeology, vol. Social archaeology, Malden, MA.: Blackwell Pub. Ltd, 2004, pp. 335–352 [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470693605

[472]
C. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, ‘Archaeology and indigenous collaboration’, in Archaeological theory today, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Polity, 2012, pp. 267–291.

[473]
Fagan, Garrett G., Archaeological fantasies: how pseudoarchaeology misrepresents the past and misleads the public. London: Routledge, 2006.

[474]
D. Fowler, ‘Archaeological ethics in context and practice’, in Handbook of archaeological theories, Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2008, pp. 409–422 [Online]. Available: https://www.vlebooks.com/Product/Index/156042?page=0&startBookmarkId=-1

[475]
C. Gosden, ‘Postcolonial archaeology. Issues of culture, identity and knowledge’, in Archaeological theory today, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Polity, 2012, pp. 241–261.

[476]
C. Gosden, ‘The past and foreign countries: colonial and post-colonial archaeology and anthropology’, in A companion to social archaeology, vol. Social archaeology, Malden, MA.: Blackwell Pub. Ltd, 2004, pp. 161–178 [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470693605

[477]
James, Simon, The Atlantic Celts: ancient people or modern invention? London: British Museum Press, 1999.

[478]
P. L. Kohl and C. Fawcett, ‘Archaeology in the service of the state: theoretical considerations’, in Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp. 3–18.

[479]
P. L. Kohl, ‘Nationalism and Archaeology: On the Constructions of Nations and the Reconstructions of the Remote Past’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 223–246, Oct. 1998, doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.27.1.223.

[480]
Layton, Robert, Who needs the past?: indigenous values and archaeology, vol. One world archaeology. London: Routledge, 1994.

[481]
M. Leone et al., ‘Can an African-American historical archaeology be an alternative voice?’, in Interpreting archaeology: finding meaning in the past, London: Routledge, 1994, pp. 110–124.

[482]
Leone, Mark P., The archaeology of liberty in an American capital: excavations in Annapolis. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005 [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1ppc5g

[483]
M. Leone and R. Preucel, ‘Archaeology in a democratic society: a critical perspective’, in Quandaries and quests: visions of archaeology’s future, vol. Occasional paper / Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, [Carbondale, Ill.]: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1992, pp. 115–135.

[484]
R. McGuire, ‘Contested pasts: archaeology and Native Americans’, in A companion to social archaeology, vol. Social archaeology, Malden, MA.: Blackwell Pub. Ltd, 2004, pp. 374–395.

[485]
McGuire, Randall H., Archaeology as political action, vol. California series in public anthropology. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.

[486]
Meskell, Lynn, Archaeology under fire: nationalism, politics and heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. London: Routledge, 1998.

[487]
L. Meskell, ‘The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 279–301, Oct. 2002, doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.31.040402.085457.

[488]
T. Murray, ‘Communication and the importance of disciplinary communities: who owns the past?’, in Archaeological theory: who sets the agenda?, vol. New directions in archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 105–116.

[489]
M. P. Pearson, T. Schadla-Hall, and G. Moshenska, ‘Resolving the Human Remains Crisis in British Archaeology’, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, vol. 21, pp. 5–9, 2011, doi: 10.5334/pia.369.

[490]
S. Ratnagar, ‘Archaeology at the Heart of a Political Confrontation: The Case of Ayodhya’, Current Anthropology, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 239–259, Apr. 2004, doi: 10.1086/381044.

[491]
Reid, Donald M., Whose pharaohs?: archaeology, museums, and Egyptian national identity from Napoleon to World War I. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 2002.

[492]
Saitta, Dean J., The archaeology of collective action, vol. The American experience in archaeological perspective. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2007.

[493]
Smith, Laurajane, Archaeological theory and the politics of cultural heritage. London: Routledge, 2004.

[494]
Stottman, M. Jay, Archaeologists as activists: can archaeologists change the world? Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2010.

[495]
S. Tarlow and L. N. Stutz, ‘Can an archaeologist be a public intellectual?’, Archaeological Dialogues, vol. 20, no. 01, pp. 1–5, Jun. 2013, doi: 10.1017/S1380203813000032.

[496]
Thomas, David Hurst, Skull wars: Kennewick man, archaeology, and the battle for Native American identity. New York, N.Y.: Basic Books, 2000.

[497]
B. G. Trigger, ‘Archaeology and the image of the American Indian’, American Antiquity, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 662–676, 1980.

[498]
A. Wylie, ‘The interplay of evidential constraints and political interests: Recent archaeological research on gender’, American Antiquity, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 15–35, 1992.

[499]
A. Wylie, ‘Alternative histories. Epistemic disunity and political integrity’, in Making alternative histories: the practice of archaeology and history in non-Western settings, vol. School of American Research advanced seminar series, Santa Fe, N.M: School of American Research Press, 1995, pp. 255–272.

[500]
Zimmerman, Larry J., Vitelli, Karen D., and Hollowell-Zimmer, Julie, Ethical issues in archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 2003.

[501]
D. L. Clarke, ‘Archaeology: the loss of innocence’, Antiquity, vol. 47, no. 185, pp. 6–18, 1973.

[502]
Ian Hodder, ‘Postprocessual Archaeology’, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 8, pp. 1–26, 1985.

[503]
C. Tilley, ‘Round Barrows and Dykes as Landscape Metaphors’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 185–203, Oct. 2004, doi: 10.1017/S0959774304000125.

[504]
P. Fisher, C. Farrelly, A. Maddocks, and C. Ruggles, ‘Spatial Analysis of Visible Areas from the Bronze Age Cairns of Mull’, Journal of Archaeological Science, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 581–592, Jul. 1997, doi: 10.1006/jasc.1996.0142.

[505]
K. V. Flannery, ‘Process and Agency in Early State Formation’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 3–21, 1999, doi: 10.1017/S0959774300015183.

[506]
R. A. Joyce, ‘Unintended Consequences? Monumentality as a Novel Experience in Formative Mesoamerica’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 5–29, 2004.

[507]
J. V. S. Megaw and M. R. Megaw, ‘Ancient Celts and Modern Ethnicity’, Antiquity, vol. 70, no. 267, pp. 175–181, 1996.

[508]
S. James, ‘Celts, politics and motivation in archaeology’, Antiquity, vol. 72, no. 275, pp. 200–209, 1998.

[509]
C. S. VanPool and T. L. VanPool, ‘The scientific nature of post-processualism’, American Antiquity, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 33–53, 1999.

[510]
P. J. Arnold III and B. S. Wilkens, ‘On the VanPools’ “scientific” post-processualism’, American Antiquity, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 361–366, 2001.

[511]
S. R. Hutson, ‘Synergy through disunity, science as social practice: Comments on VanPool and VanPool’, American Antiquity, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 349–360, 2001.

[512]
T. L. VanPool and C. S. VanPool, ‘Postprocessualism and the nature of science: A response to comments by Hutson and Arnold and Wilkens’, American Antiquity, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 367–375, 2001.

[513]
I. Hodder, ‘“Always momentary, fluid and flexible”: Towards a reflexive excavation methodology’, Antiquity, vol. 71, no. 273, pp. 691–700, 1997.

[514]
F. Hassan, ‘Beyond the surface: Comments on Hodder’s reflexive excavation methodology’, Antiquity, vol. 71, no. 274, pp. 1020–1025, 1997.

[515]
I. Hodder, ‘Whose rationality? A response to Fekri Hassan’, Antiquity, vol. 72, no. 275, pp. 213–217, 1998.

[516]
D. B. Bamforth, ‘Evidence and metaphor in evolutionary archaeology’, American Antiquity, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 435–452, 2002.

[517]
M. J. O’Brien, R. L. Lyman, and R. D. Leonard, ‘What is evolution? A response to Bamforth’, American Antiquity, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 573–580, 2003.

[518]
D. B. Bamforth, ‘What is archaeology? (Or confusion, sound and fury, signifying....)’, American Antiquity, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 581–584, 2003.

Bibliography for ARCL2028: Current Issues in Archaeological Theory BETA