Advertisement

An Anthropology of Absence: Commentary

  • Lynn Meskell
Chapter

Abstract

Archaeologists are accustomed to responding to absence, to reading the spaces and bygone traces of materials and practices, as well as assembling the social worlds of people now departed. The often haunting fragmentary remains that are bequeathed to us, the palimpsest and the void itself - plus the material and immaterial methodologies employed to interpret and revivify the past - are often more telling and carry greater psychical weight, than dealing with the myriad intact artifacts that have endured.

Keywords

Black Cumin Immaterial Deity Black Marble Fragmentary Remains Bedouin Community 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Belting, H. 1994. Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Buchli, V., and G. Lucas. Editors. 2001. Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C. 2003. Dismembering/disremembering the Buddhas: renderings on the internet during the Afghan purge of the past. Journal of Social Archaeology 3:75-98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis, R. H. 1997. Lives of Indian Images. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hegel, G. W. F. 1977. Phenomenology of Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hodder, I. 2006. The Leopard’s Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  7. Huyssen, A. 1995. Twilight Memories: Marking Time in a Culture of Amnesia. NY: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Keane, W. 2003. Semiotics and the social analysis of material things. Language and Communication 23:409-425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mauss, M. 1990. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  10. Meskell, L. M. 2002. Negative heritage and past mastering in archaeology. Anthropological Quarterly 75:557-574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Meskell, L. M. 2004. Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt: Material Biographies Past and Present. London: Berg.Google Scholar
  12. Meskell, L. M. 2008. The nature of the beast: curating animals and ancestors at Çatalhöyük. World Archaeology 40:373-389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Miller, D. 2005. “Introduction,” in Materiality. Edited by D. Miller, pp. 1-50. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Munn, N. D. 1986. The Fame of Gawa: A Symbolic Study of Value Transformation in a Massim (Papua New Guinea) Society. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Pels, P. 1998. “The spirit of matter: on fetish, rarity, fact, and fancy,” in Border Fetishisms: Material Objects in Unstable Places. Edited by P. Spyer, pp. 91-121. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Proctor, R. 2009. “Agnatology: a missing term to describe the cultural production of ignorance (and its study),” in Agnatology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. Edited by R. Proctor and L. Scheibinger, pp. 1-33. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Spyer, P. Editor. 1998. Border Fetishisms: Material Objects in Unstable Places. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations