Abstract
The above quote is taken from the Metallica song The Struggle Within, taken from their self-titled album.
*The ATP has emerged from the collective efforts of a wide range of students and researchers, too many to credit as joint authors. However, we list the most significant contributors to this paper here in alphabetical order: Hannah Cobb, Alistair Curtis, Héléna Gray, Oliver Harris, Gemma Midlane, Paul Murtagh, Phil Richardson and Eleanor Rowley-Conwy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Andrews, G., Barrett, J.C. and Lewis, J.S.C., 2000. Interpretation not record: the practice of archaeology. Antiquity 74:525–30.
Barrett, J.C., 2000 [1988]. Fields of discourse: reconstituting a social archaeology. In Interpretative Archaeology: a Reader, edited by J. Thomas pp. 23–32 Leicester University Press, Leicester.
Barrett, J.C., 2001. Agency, the duality of structure, and the problem of the archaeological record. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 141–164. Polity, Cambridge.
Berggren, A. and Hodder, I., 2003. Social practice, method, and some problems for field archaeology. American Antiquity 68:421–34.
Casey, E.S., 2000. Remembering: a phenomenological study. 2nd edition Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Chadwick, A., 1998. Archaeology at the edge of chaos: further towards reflexive excavation methodologies. Assemblage 3. http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/3/3chad.htm
Chadwick, A., 2003. Post-processualism, professionalisation and archaeological practice. Towards reflective and radical practice. Archaeological Dialogues 10:97–117.
Cobb, H.L. and Richardson, P., 2007 Project Design for Season 3 (2008), Ardnamurchan Transitions Project unpublished report no. 7
Cobb, H.L. and Richardson, P., 2009. Transition/transformation: exploring alternative excavation practices to transform student learning and development in the field. Research in Archaeological Education 1(2), Prehistoric Pedagogies theme, pp. 21–40.
Connerton, P., 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Drewitt, P., 1999. Field Archaeology: an Introduction. Routledge, London.
Edgeworth, M., 2006. Multiple origins, development and potential of ethnographies of archaeology. In Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice, edited by M. Edgeworth, pp. 1–19. AltaMira Press, Oxford.
Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Polity, Cambridge.
Gray, H., Cobb, H.L. and Richardson, P. in prep., Developing Practical Approaches to Multivocal Reflexivity in the Excavation Process.
Gren, M., 2001. Time-geography matters. In Timespace: Geographies of Temporality edited by J. May, and N. Thrift, pp. 208–225. Routledge, London
Haraway, D., 1991. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: the Reinvention of Nature. Free Association Press, London.
Harris, O.J.T., 2006. Identity, Emotion and Memory in Neolithic Dorset. Unpublished PhD thesis: Cardiff University.
Hodder, I., 1997. Always momentary, fluid and flexible: towards a reflexive excavation methodology. Antiquity 71:691–700.
Hodder, I., 1999. The Archaeological Process. Blackwell, Oxford.
Hodder, I. Editor, 2000. Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: the Example at Çatalhöyük by Members of the Çatalhöyük Team. McDonald Institute, Cambridge.
Ingold, T., 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Routledge, London.
Kierkegaard S., 1992. Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Lindholm P., 2007. The struggle within: Hetfield, Kirkegaard, and the pursuit of authenticity. In Metallica and Philosophy: a Crash Course in Brain Surgery edited by W. Irwin, pp. 65–73. Blackwell, Oxford.
Latour, B., 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Latour, B., 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Lucas, G., 2001. Critical Approaches to Fieldwork: Contemporary and Historical Archaeological Practice. Routledge, London.
Molas., 1994. The Museum of London Archaeology Service Archaeological Site Manual. London: Museum of London Archaeology Service. www.museumoflondonarchaeology.org.uk/English/SkillsServices/FieldTech/Excavation.htm (accessed 11/03/2008).
Olsen, B., 2003. Material culture after text: remembering things. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36, 87–104.
Patrick, L., 1985. Is there an archaeological record? Advances in Method and Theory 8:27–62.
Roskams, S., 2001. Excavation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Shanks, M., 2007. Symmetrical archaeology. World Archaeology 39(4): 589–96.
SHEP., 2009. Scottish Historic Environment Policy. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland. http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/shep-july-2009.pdf (accessed 1/5/10).
Thomas, J., 2004. Archaeology and Modernity. Routledge, London.
Van Gennep, A., 1960. The Rites of Passage. Routledge, London.
Webmoor, T., 2007. What about ‘one more turn after the social’ in archaeological reasoning: taking things seriously. World Archaeology 39(4):563–78.
Webmoor, T. and Witmore, C.L., 2008. Things are us! A commentary on human thing relations under the banner of a social archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review 41(1):53–70.
Witmore, C.L., 2007. Symmetrical archaeology: excerpts of a manifesto. World Archaeology 39(4):546–62.
Yarrow, T., 2003. Artefactual persons: the relational capacities of persons and things in the practice of excavation. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36(1):65–73.
Yarrow, T., 2006. Sites of knowledge: different ways of knowing an excavation. In Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice editor M. Edgeworth, pp. 20-32. AltaMira Press, Oxford
Yarrow, T., 2008. In context: meaning, materiality and agency in the process of archaeological recording. In Material Agency, edited by C. Knappett and L. Malafouris, pp. 121–37. Springer, New York.
Acknowledgements
The Ardnamurchan Transitions Project would like to thank the Ardnamurchan Estate and Historic Scotland for permission to conduct work in Swordle Bay. We also gratefully acknowledge The Leverhulme Trust, The British Academy, The Prehistoric Society, The Russell Trust, The Council for British Archaeology, the Glasgow Archaeological Society, The Royal Archaeological Institute, the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research and the Universities of Manchester and Newcastle, without whose funding this project would not have been possible. We would also like to thank all those who have participated in the project so far.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Members of the Ardnamurchan Transitions Project. (2012). The Struggle Within: Challenging the Subject/Object Relationship on a Shoestring. In: Cobb, H., Harris, O., Jones, C., Richardson, P. (eds) Reconsidering Archaeological Fieldwork. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2338-6_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2338-6_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-2337-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-2338-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)