Abstract
This chapter discusses the contributions of the volume in terms of the problem of ‘house as object’. It argues for an archaeological architecture that undoes the ‘house as object’ in three important ways—there is an approach that extends architectural history into material culture studies, another that explores the dimensions of architectural space as a part of landscape, and a final one that understands the value of allowing time and use to add meaning to architecture.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In arguing this point, I am not simply replacing the word ‘house’ with ‘architecture’—I am considering ‘architecture’ as a more open term, and one that is not necessarily wrapped up in the ideas of object.
- 2.
There is no danger of a Potemkin Village here; the ways in which we are being asked to conduct research make houses, and the significance of their appearance, real.
References
Ballantyne, A. 2002. The nest and the pillar of fire. In What is architecture?, ed. A. Ballantyne, 7–52. London: Routledge.
Barrett, J. C. 1988. Fields of discourse: reconstituting a social archaeology. Critique of Anthropology 7 (3): 5–16.
Barrett, J. C. 1994. Fragments from antiquity: an archaeology of social life in Britain 2900–1200BC. Oxford: Blackwell.
Barrett, J. C. 2006. Archaeology as the investigation of the contexts of humanity. In Deconstructing context. A critical approach to archaeological practice, ed. D. Papaconstantinou, 194–211. Oxford: Oxbow.
Brück, J. 1999. Houses, lifecycles and deposition on middle bronze age settlements in southern England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65:145–66.
Brudenell, M. and A. Cooper. 2008. Post-Middenism: depositional histories on Later Bronze Age settlements at Broom, Bedfordshire. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 27 (1), 15–36.
Buchli, V. 2010. Households and ‘home cultures’. In The Oxford handbook of material culture studies, eds. D. Hicks and M.C. Beaudry, 502–517. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Buchli, V., A. Clarke and D. Upton. 2004. Editorial. Home cultures 1:2–4.
Chapman, J. 2000. Fragmentation in archaeology: people places and broken objects in the prehistory of south eastern Europe. London: Routledge.
Chapman, J. 2008. Object fragmentation in past landscapes. In The handbook of landscape archaeology. WAC research handbooks in archaeology, eds. B. David and J. Thomas, 187–201. Walnut Creek: Left Coast.
Chapman, J. and B. Gaydarska. 2007. Parts and wholes. Fragmentation in prehistoric context. Oxford: Oxbow.
Garrow, D., E. Beadsmoore and M. Knight. 2005. Pit clusters and the temporality of occupation: an earlier Neolithic site at Kilverstone, Thetford, Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71:139–57.
Gibson, A. 2003. What do we mean by Neolithic settlement? Some approaches, 10 years on. In Neolithic settlement in Ireland and western Britain, eds. I. Armit, E. Murphy, E. Nelis and D. Simpson, 136–45. Oxford: Oxbow.
Grosz, E. 2001. Architecture from the outside. Essays on virtual and real space. Cambridge: MIT.
Hill, J. 2003. Actions of architecture: Architects and creative users. London: Routledge.
Kinnes, I. A. 1988. The Cattleship Potemkin: the first Neolithic in Britain. In The archaeology of context in the Neolithic and bronze age: Recent trends, eds. J. C. Barrett and I. A. Kinnes, 2–8. Sheffield: Sheffield University Department of Archaeology and Prehistory.
McFadyen, L. 2008. Building and architecture as landscape practice. In The handbook of landscape archaeology. WAC research handbooks in archaeology, eds. B. David and J. Thomas, 307–314. Walnut Creek: Left Coast.
McFadyen, L. 2010. Spaces that were not densely occupied—questioning ‘ephemeral’ evidence. In Archaeology and anthropology. understanding similarity, exploring difference, eds. D. Garrow and T. Yarrow, 40–52. Oxford: Oxbow.
McFadyen, L. in press. The time it takes to make: design and use in architecture and archaeology. In Crafting potentials: people as skilled innovators, eds. W. Gunn and J. Donovan. London: Ashgate.
Till, J. 2009. Architecture depends. Cambridge: MIT.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Daniela Hofmann and Jessica Smyth for the invitation to discuss the research in this book, and special thanks to them for their kindness and patience. Thanks to Mark Knight for reading and commenting on the text, and for help in developing the ideas presented here on time and the activities that pottery is caught up in.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McFadyen, L. (2013). House, Household, Home. In: Hofmann, D., Smyth, J. (eds) Tracking the Neolithic House in Europe. One World Archaeology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5289-8_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5289-8_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5288-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5289-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)