Vol. 75 No. 1 (2023)
Topical Review

Ontological turns in archaeology and material culture studies: archaeology as a discipline about ‘things’

Ladislav Čapek
Katedra archeologie FF ZČU, Sedláčkova 15, CZ-306 14 Plzeň, Czech Republic

Published 25-09-2023

Keywords

  • object-oriented ontology,
  • material culture,
  • actor-network theory,
  • entanglement,
  • symmetrical archaeology,
  • new materialism,
  • assemblage thought
  • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Čapek, L. (2023). Ontological turns in archaeology and material culture studies: archaeology as a discipline about ‘things’. Archeologické Rozhledy, 75(1), 68–98. https://doi.org/10.35686/AR.2023.5

Abstract

The article introduces object-ontological theoretical and epistemological approaches that are discussed mainly in Western European (Anglo-American) archaeological communities. These approaches have the ambition, at least some of them claim, to become new theoretical thinking and to radically change the existing conception of archaeology, especially the study of material culture. The review describes and assesses the different approaches (actor-network theory, entanglement, symmetrical archaeology, new materialisms, assemblage thought) that examine relations between humans and non-humans and deal with ‘things’ as social and material objects with their own agency. Where possible, the approaches are explained through specific examples of interpretations of the archaeological record.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Alberti, B. – Fowles, S. – Holbraad, M. – Marshall, Y. – Witmore, C. 2011: “Worlds Otherwise”: Archaeology, Anthropology, and Ontological Difference. Current Anthropology 52, 896–912. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/662027
  2. Appadurai, A. 1986: The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819582
  3. Antczak, A. K. – Beaudry, C. M. 2019: Assemblages of practice. A conceptual framework for 2 exploring human–thing relations in archaeology. Archaeological Dialogues 26, 87–110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203819000205
  4. Barad, K. 2003: Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28, 801–831. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/345321
  5. Barrett, J. 2012: Agency: A Revisionist Account. In: I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeological theory today, Cambridge: Polity Press, 146–166.
  6. Barrett, J. 2014: The material constitution of humanness. Archaeological Dialogues 21, 65–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203814000105
  7. Beck, A. S. 2020: Assemblage Thought and Archaeology. Themes in Archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review 53, 176–179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2020.1796778
  8. Bennett, J. 2010: Vibrant matter. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.
  9. Binford, L. 1962: Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity 28, 217–225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/278380
  10. Binford, L. 1983: In Pursuit of the Past: decoding the archaeological record. London: Thames and Hudson.
  11. Bourdieu, P. 1977: Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812507
  12. Brown, B. 2001: Thing theory. Critical Inquiry 28, 1–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/449030
  13. Brown, B. 2003: A sense of things: the object matter of American literature. Chicago –London: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226076317.001.0001
  14. Brož, L. – Stöckelová, T. 2015: Přísliby a úskalí symetrie: sociální vědy v zemi za zrcadlem. Cargo 13, 5–33.
  15. Brughmans, T. 2010: Connecting the Dots: Towards Archaeological Network Analysis. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 29, 277–303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0092.2010.00349.x
  16. Callon, M. 1999: Actor-network Theory – The Market Test. In: J. Law – J. Hassard (eds.), Actor Network Theory and After, Sociological Review Monographs. Blackwell, 181–195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.46.s.10
  17. Coole, D. – Frost, S. F. 2010: Introducing the New Materialisms. In: D. Coole – S. F. Frost (eds.), New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency and Politics. London: Duke University Press, 1–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11cw2wk.4
  18. Chazan, M. 2019: The reality of artifacts. An archaeological perspective. London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315439280
  19. Deetz, J. F. 1977: In Small Things Forgotten: the archaeology of early American life. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1594120
  20. DeLanda, M. 2006: A New Philosophy of Society. Assemblage theory and social complexity. London: Bloomsbury.
  21. DeLanda, M. 2016: Assemblage Theory Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474413640
  22. Deleuze, G. – Guattari, F. 2004: A thousand plateaus. London: Continuum.
  23. Dobres, M.-A. – Robb, J. E. 2005: “Doing” Agency: Introductory Remarks on Methodology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12, 159–166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-005-6926-z
  24. Domańska, E. 2006: The return to things. Archaeologia Polona 44, 171–185.
  25. Duistermaat, K. 2017: The Organisation of Pottery Production: Towards a Relational Approach. In: W. A. Hunt (ed.), Archaeological Ceramic Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 114–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199681532.013.9
  26. Fahlander, F. 2007: Third space Encounters: Hybridity, Mimicry, and interstitial Practice. In: P. Cornell – F. Fahlander (eds.), Encounters-Materialities-Conrontations: Archaeologies of Social Space and Interaction, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 15–43.
  27. Fahlander, F. 2008: Diferences that Matter: Materialities, Material Culture, and Social Practice. In: H. Glørstad – L. Hedaeger (eds.), Six Essays on the Materiality of Society and Culture, Gothenburg: Bricoleur Press, 127–154.
  28. Fahlander, F. 2017: Ontology Matters in Archaeology and Anthropology People, things, and Posthumanism. In: D. J. Englehardt – A. I. Rieger (eds.), These "thin partitions": bridging the growing divide between cultural anthropology and archaeology, Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 69–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5876/9781607325420.c003
  29. Fowler, C. 2013: The Emergent Past. A Relational Realist Archaeology of Early Bronze Age Mortuary Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199656370.001.0001
  30. Garcia-Rovira, I. 2015: What About Us? On Archaeological Objects (or the Objects of Archaeology). Current Swedish Archaeology 23, 85–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37718/CSA.2015.08
  31. Geertz, C. 1973: The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
  32. Gell, A. 1998: Art and Agency: an Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  33. Gibas, P. – Pauknerová, K. – Stella, M. 2011: Introductory Chapter. In: P. Gibas – K. Pauknerová – M. Stella et al., Non-Humans in Social Science: Animals, Spaces, Things, Červený Kostelec: Pavel Mervart, 9–32.
  34. Giddens, A. 1984: The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley – Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  35. Gosden, C. 2004: Making and display: our aesthetic appreciation of things and objects. In: C. Renfrew – C. Gosden – E. DeMarrais (eds.), Substance, Memory, Display: Archaeology and Art, Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, 35–45.
  36. Gosden, C. 2005: What Do Object Want? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12, 193–211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-005-6928-x
  37. Govier, E. – Steel, L. 2021: Beyond the ‘thingification’ of worlds: Archaeology and the New Materialisms. Journal of Material Culture 26, 298–317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13591835211025559
  38. Hahn, P. H. 2019: Materielle Kultur? Fragestellungen, Entwicklungen, Potenziale. MEMO 5 Perspektiven auf Materielle Kultur. 50 Jahre Institut für Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, 5–19.
  39. Hamilakis, Y. – Jones, M. A. 2016: Archaeology and Assemblage. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27, 77–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774316000688
  40. Harré, R. 2002: Material Objects in Social World. Theory, Culture and Society 19, 23–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/026327602761899129
  41. Harris, O. J. T. 2014: (Re)assemblig Communities. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 21, 76–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-012-9138-3
  42. Harris, O. J. T. 2018: More than representation: Multiscalar assemblages and the Deleuzian challenge to archaeology. History of Human Science 31, 83–104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695117752016
  43. Harris, O. J. T. – Cipolla, C. N. 2017: Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium: Introducing Current Perspectives. London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315713250
  44. Heidegger, M. 1971: Poetry, language, thought. New York: Harper & Row.
  45. Heidegger, M. 1993: Básnicky bydlí člověk. Přel. I. Chvatík. Praha: Oikoymenh.
  46. Hicks, D. 2010: The Material-Cultural Turn. Event and Effect. In: D. Hicks – M. C. Beaudry (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25–98.
  47. Hodder, I. 1982: Symbols in Action: ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  48. Hodder, I. 1986: Reading the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  49. Hodder, I. 1987: The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  50. Hodder, I. 2012: Entangled: An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118241912
  51. Hodder, I. 2014: The asymmetries of symmetrical archaeology. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 1, 228–230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/jca.v1i2.26674
  52. Hodder, I. 2016: Studies in Human-Thing Entanglement. Self-Published e-book. Dostupné z: http://www.ian-hodder.com/books/studies-human-thing-entanglement [cit. 24-1-2023].
  53. Hodder, I. – Mol, A. 2016: Network analysis and entanglement. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 23, 1066–1094. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-015-9259-6
  54. Hodder, I. – Lucas, G. 2017: The symmetries and asymmetries of human–thing relations. A dialogue. Archaeological Dialogues 24, 119–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203817000137
  55. Hofmann, K. 2016: Dinge als historische Quellen in Revision Materialität, Spuren und Geschichten. In: P. K. Hofmann – T. Meier – D. Mölders – S. Schreiber (Hrsg.), Massendinghaltung in der Archäologie. Der material turn und die Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Leiden: Sidestone, 283–308.
  56. Hrdlička, J. 2022: Řeč hmotné kultury. In: V. Bůžek (ed.), Dílo Josefa Petráně a současná historická věda. Pocta Jihočeské univerzity českému historikovi, Praha: NLN, 48–58.
  57. Ingold, T. 2007: Materials against materiality. Archaeological Dialogues 14, 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203807002127
  58. Ingold, T. 2008: When ANT meets SPIDER: Social theory for arthropods. In: C. Knappett – L. Malafouris (eds.), Material Agency. Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach. Springer, 209–216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74711-8_11
  59. Ingold, T. 2011: Being alive. Essays on movement, knowledge and description. London: Routledge.
  60. Ingold, T. 2012: Toward an ecology of materials. Annual review of anthropology 41, 427–442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145920
  61. Jervis, B. 2011: A patchwork of people, pots and places Material engagements and the construction of 'the social' in Hamwic. Journal of Social Archaeology 11, 239–265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605311420223
  62. Jervis, B. 2014: Pottery and Social Life in Medieval England: Towards a Relational Approach. Oxford: Oxbow Books. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh1dwkm
  63. Jervis, B. 2015: Assemblage Theory and Town Foundation in Medieval England. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 26, 381–395. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774316000159
  64. Jervis, B. 2017: Assessing urban fortunes in six late medieval ports: an archaeological application of assemblage theory. Urban History 44, 1–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963926815000930
  65. Jervis, B. 2019: Assemblage Thought and Archaeology. London – New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315158594
  66. Kapusta, J. 2015: Mayské kříže, hory a jeskyně ve světle ontologického relativismu a fenomenologické antropologie. Český lid 102, 437–463.
  67. Knappett, C. 2005: Thinking Through Material Culture. University of Pennsylvania Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812202496
  68. Knappett, C. 2008: The Neglected Networks of Material Agency: Artefacts, Pictures and Texts. In: C. Knappett – L. Malafouris (eds.), Material Agency. Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach. Springer, 139–156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74711-8_8
  69. Knappett, C. 2011: An Archaeology of Interaction. Network Perspectives on Material Culture and Society. New York: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199215454.001.0001
  70. Knappett, C. – Malafouris, L. 2008: Material and Nonhuman Agency: An Introduction. In: C. Knappett – L. Malafouris (eds.), Material Agency. Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach. Springer, 9–19.
  71. Kopytoff, I. 1986: The cultural biography of things: comodification as proces. In: A. Appadurai (ed.), The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 64–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819582.004
  72. Kristiansen, K. 2014: Towards a New Paradigm? The Third Science Revolution and its Possible Consequences in Archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology 22, 11–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37718/CSA.2014.01
  73. Kuna, M. – Turek, J. 2021: Neobyčejné dílo Evžena Neustupného (1933–2021). Archeologie ve středních Čechách 25, 371–376.
  74. Kuna, M. – Němcová, A. – Šálková, T. – Menšík, P. – Chvojka, O. 2022: Deposition analysis and the hidden life of Bronze Age houses. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 67, 101433. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2022.101433
  75. Latour, B. 1999: Pandora’s hope. Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
  76. Latour, B. 2005: Reassembling the social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  77. Law, J. 2010: The materials of STS. In: D. Hicks – M. Beaudry (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 173–188.
  78. Lefebvre, H. 1991: The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.
  79. Lenderová, M. 2007: Kulturní dějiny? Kulturní dějiny! Theatrum historiae 2, 7–26.
  80. Lindstrøm, T. C. 2015: Agency in ‘in itself’. A discussion of inanimate, animal and human agency. Archaeological Dialogues 22, 207–238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203815000264
  81. Lucas, G. 2010: Triangulating Absence: Exploring the fault-lines between Archaeology and Anthropology. In: D. Garrow – T. Yarrow (eds.), Archaeology and Anthropology: Understanding Similarity, Exploring Diference, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 28–39.
  82. Lucas, G. 2012: Understanding the archaeological record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511845772
  83. Lucas, G. 2013: Afterword. Archaeology and the science of new objects. In: B. Alberti – M. A. Jones – J. Pollard (eds.), Archaeology after interpretation. Returning materials to archaeological theory, Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, 369–413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315434254-18
  84. Mácha, P. 2015: Ani příroda, ani kultura (antropologické inspirace). The Journal of Culture 2, 17–24.
  85. Malafouris, L. 2004: The cognitive basis of material engagement: Where brain, body and culture conflate. In: E. DeMarrais – C. Gosden – C. Renfrew (eds.), Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material, Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs, 53–62.
  86. Malafouris, L. 2008: At the Potter’s Wheel: An Argument for Material Agency. In: C. Knappett – L. Malafouris (eds.), Material Agency. Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach, Springer, 19–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74711-8_2
  87. Malafouris, L. 2013: How Things Shape the Mind A Theory of Material Engagement. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9476.001.0001
  88. Meier, T. 2016: Dingeleien (Zu) kurze Anmerkungen zu phänomenologischen Ding-Theorien. In: P. K. Hofmann – T. Meier – D. Mölders – S. Schreiber (Hrsg.), Massendinghaltung in der Archäologie. Der material turn und die Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Leiden: Sidestone, 241–282.
  89. Miller, D. 1987: Material culture and mass consumption. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  90. Miller, D. 1998: Why some things matter. In: D. Miller (ed.), Material cultures, London: UCL Press, 3–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203167014
  91. Mol, A. 2010: Actor-network theory. Sensitive terms and enduring tensions. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 50, 253–269.
  92. Mol, E. v tisku: New Materialism and Posthumanism in Roman Archaeology: When Objects Speak for Others, Cambridge Archaeological Journal.
  93. Müller, U. 2009: Netzwerkanalysen in der Historischen Archäologie Begriffe und Beispiele. In: Historia achaeologica – RGA-E Band 70, Berlin – New York: De Gruyter, 735–754. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110223385.735
  94. Neustupný, E. 2010: Teorie archeologie. Plzeň: Aleš Čeněk.
  95. Neustupný, E. 2012: Towards a new paradigm. In: B. Gediga – A. Grossman – W. Piotrowski (eds.), Rytm Przemian Kułturowych w Pradziejach i Średniowieczu, Biskupin – Wrocław: Muzeum Archeologiczne w Biskupinie, 17–26.
  96. Neustupný, E. 2013: The archaeology of artefacts. Anthropologie 51, 169–174.
  97. Neustupný, E. 2018: Lidský svět a příroda. Vesmír 97, 108–112.
  98. Olsen, B. 1990: Roland Barthes: from sign to text. In: C. Tilley (ed.), Reading Material Culture, Studies in Social Archaeology, Oxford: Blackwell, 63–205.
  99. Olsen, B. 2003: Material culture after text: re-membering things. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36, 87–104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00293650310000650
  100. Olsen, B. 2010: In Defense of Things: Archaeology and the Ontology of Objects. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
  101. Olsen, B. 2012: After interpretation: remembering archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology 20, 11–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37718/CSA.2012.01
  102. Olsen, B. – Shanks, M. – Webmoor, T. – Witmore, Ch. 2012: Archaeology: The Discipline of Things. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520954007
  103. Pauketat, T. 2001: Practice and history in archaeology. Anthropological Theory 1, 73–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/146349960100100105
  104. Pauknerová, K. 2014: Co říká dům: Možnosti symetrického přístupu k materialitě domova. Český lid 101, 439–458.
  105. Petráň, J. a kol. 1985–1997: Dějiny hmotné kultury I–II. Praha: SPN.
  106. Pétursdóttir, Þ. 2017: Climate change? Archaeology and Anthropocene. Archaeological Dialogues 24, 175–205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203817000216
  107. Pétursdóttir, Þ – Olsen, B. 2018: Theory adrift: The matter of archaeological theorizing. Journal of Social Archaeology 18, 97–117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605317737426
  108. Preucel, R. W. 2006: Archaeological Semiotics. Blackwell Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754962
  109. Preucel, R. 2012: Archaeology and the Limitations of Actor Network Theory. Dostupné na: https://www.academia.edu/10272554/Archaeology_and_the_Limitations_of_Actor_Network_Theory [přístupné 13–2–2023].
  110. Renfrew, A. C. 1973: Social Archaeology. An inaugural lecture delivered at the university, 20th March 1973. Southampton: University of Southampton.
  111. Renfrew, A. C. 2001: Symbol before concept, material engagement and the early development of society. In: I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeological Theory Today, Cambridge: Polity Press, 122–140.
  112. Ribeiro, A. 2018: Ontologies. In: Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_2706-1
  113. Robb, J. 2010: Beyond Agency. World Archaeology 42, 493–520. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2010.520856
  114. Roux, V. 2019: Ceramic and Society. Springer.
  115. Smetánka, Z. 1995: Hmotná kultura. In: P. Spunar a kol., Kultura středověku, Praha: Academia, 9–42.
  116. Schiffer, M. B. 1972: Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity 37, 156–165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/278203
  117. Schiffer, M. B. 1976: Behavioural Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.
  118. Schiffer, M. B. 1987: Formation processes of the archaeological record. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
  119. Shanks, M. 2007: Symmetrical Archaeology. World Archaeology 39, 589–596. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00438240701679676
  120. Shanks, M. – Tilley, C. 1987: Social Theory and Archaeology. Cambridge: Polity.
  121. Sindbaek, S. 2007: Networks and nodal points: the emergence of towns in early Viking Age Scandinavia. Antiquity 81, 119–132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00094886
  122. Skibo, J. – Schiffer, M. B. 2008: People and Things. A Behavioral Approach to Material Culture. New York: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-76527-3
  123. Stockhammer, P. 2012: Performing the Practice Turn in Archaeology. Transcultural Studies 1, 7–42.
  124. Strathern, M. 1988: The Gender of the Gift: problems with women and problems with society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520064232.001.0001
  125. Thomas, J. 2015: The future of archaeological theory. Antiquity 89, 1287–1296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2015.183
  126. Thomas, N. 1991: Entangled objects. Exchange, material culture, and colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
  127. Tilley, C. (ed.) 1990: Reading Material Culture: structuralism, hermeneutics and poststructuralism. Oxford: Blackwell.
  128. Tilley, C. 1999: Metaphor and Material Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.
  129. Van Dyke, R. 2015: Materiality in practise. In: R. Van Dyke (ed.), Practicing Materiality. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 3–32.
  130. Van der Leeuw, S. E. 2008: Agency, Networks, Past and Future. In: C. Knappett – L. Malafouris (eds.), Material Agency. Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach. Springer, 217–248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74711-8_12
  131. Van Oyen, A. 2015: Actor-Network Theory’s Take on Archaeological Types: Becoming, Material Agency and Historical Explanation. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 25, 63–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774314000705
  132. Van Oyen, A. 2017: Material culture and mobility: A brief history of archaeological thought. In: C. Heitz – R. Stapfer (eds.), Mobility and Pottery Production. Archaeological and Anthropologial Perspectives, Leiden: Sidestone Press, 53–68.
  133. Van Oyen, A. 2018: Material Agency. In: S. L. López Varela (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Archaeological Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, 1–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119188230.saseas0363
  134. Webmoor, T. 2007: What about ‘one more turn after the social’ in archaeological reasoning? Taking things seriously. World Archaeology 39, 563–578. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00438240701679619
  135. Webmoor, T. 2012: Symmetry, STS, Archaeology. In: P. Graves-Brown – R. Harrison – A. Piccini (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Contemporary World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 105–120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199602001.013.039
  136. Witmore, C. L. 2007: Symmetrical archaeology: excerpts of a manifesto. World Archaeology 39, 546–562. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00438240701679411
  137. Witmore, C. L. 2014: Archaeology and the New Materialisms. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 1, 203–246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/jca.v1i2.16661
  138. Witmore, C. L. 2020: Finding symmetry? Archaeology, Objects, and Posthumanism. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 31, 477–485. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774321000160