Abstract
With the availability of secondary sources easily accessible through archives, there is a trend for some scholars to remediate the research of others, instead of undertaking primary research. It is understandable that archaeologists write about excavations they have not dug on, but basing archaeological narratives predominantly on secondary sources can perpetuate errors or misapprehensions and give new meaning to the phrase ‘the archaeological imagination’. The challenge for the discipline then becomes historiographical—sifting through networks of references between publications over time to an author that actually viewed an object or visited a site. This is where current approaches to art/archaeology differ. Many of those reaching across disciplines to explore this emergent collaborative field make a concerted effort to visit the contemporary undertakings of others. Artists take part in residency programmes on archaeological sites, and archaeologistsregularly attend exhibition openings featuring the work of artists. At times, both meet in undisciplined spaces between their practices, to explore new possibilities for making and interpreting the world.
An account of places and things from inspection, not compiled from others’ labours or travels in one’s studyWilliam Stukeley, 1724
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
References
Bradley, R. (2009). Image and audience: Rethinking prehistoric art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cochrane, A. (2007). We have never been material. Journal of Iberian Archaeology, 9/10, 138–57.
Cochrane, A. (2012). The immanency of the intangible image. In I.-M. Back Danielsson, F. Fahlander, & Y. Sjöstrand (Eds.), Encountering imagery: Materialities, perceptions, relations (pp. 133–60). Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Cochrane, A. (2013). Representational approaches to Irish passage tombs: Legacies, burdens, opportunities. In B. Alberti, A. M. Jones, & J. Pollard (Eds.), Archaeology after Interpretation. Materials, relations, becomings (pp. 251–72). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Cochrane, A., & Russell, I. (2007). Visualizing archaeologies: a manifesto. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 17(1), 3–19.
Cochrane, A., & Jones, A. M. (2012). Visualising the Neolithic: An introduction. In A. Cochrane & A. M. Jones (Eds.), Visualising the Neolithic (pp. 1–14). Oxbow: Oxford.
Jones, A. M. (2012. Prehistoric materialities: Becoming material in prehistoric Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Russell, I. A. (2013a). The art of the past: Before and after archaeology. In D. Roelstraete (Ed.), The way of the shovel: Art as archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Russell, I. A. (2013b). Cultural heritage management and images of the past. In C. Smith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of global archaeology (pp. 323–4). New York: Springer.
Thomas, J. (2009). On the ocularcentrism of archaeology. In J. Thomas & V. Oliveira Jorge (Eds.), Archaeology and the politics of vision in a post-modern context (pp. 1–12). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Westman, A. (Ed.). (1994). MOLAS Archaeological site manual (3rd ed.). London: Museum of London.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Russell, I., Cochrane, A. (2014). Introduction. In: Russell, I., Cochrane, A. (eds) Art and Archaeology. One World Archaeology, vol 11. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8990-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8990-0_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-8989-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-8990-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)