Advertisement

Introduction: Mobilities in Contemporary and Historical Archaeology

  • Mary C. BeaudryEmail author
  • Travis G. Parno
Chapter
Part of the Contributions To Global Historical Archaeology book series (CGHA, volume 35)

Abstract

This collection of essays draws inspiration from current archaeological interest in the movement of individuals, things, and ideas in the recent past. Movement is fundamentally concerned with the relationship(s) among time, object, person, and space. Contemporary scholarship has highlighted the enmeshed nature of people and things (Olsen, 2010), with a particular focus on temporality as an expression of overlapping durational flows (Olivier, 2004, 2008). In our globalized world, archaeologists of the recent past are faced with a proliferation of movement episodes that shaped and are shaping the archaeological record (cf. Sheller & Urry, 2006).

Keywords

Material Culture Archaeological Record Historical Archaeology Globalized World Military Family 
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. AAA (2010). Motion check: Archaeological insights on the circulation of subjects and objects. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association (August 15, 2012). http://www.aaanet.org/mtgs/dev/viewDetail.cfm?itemtype=session&matchid=6315
  2. Aldred, O., & Sekedat, B. (2010). Moving on to mobility: Archaeological ambulations on the mobile world. Part 1 of 4. Archaeology. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University (December 15, 2010). http://traumwerk.stanford.edu/archaeolog/2010/12/moving_on_to_mobility_archaeol.html
  3. Anderson, V. D. (2004). Creatures of empire: How domestic animals transformed early America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnard, H., & Wendrich, W. (2008). The archaeology of mobility: Old World and New World nomadism. Los Angeles, CA: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bender, B. (Ed.). (1993). Landscape: Politics and perspectives. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Branton, N. (2009). Landscape approaches in historical archaeology: The archaeology of places. In T. Majewski & D. Gaimster (Eds.), International handbook of historical archaeology (pp. 51–67). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Casella, E. (2001). To watch or restrain: Female convict prisons in nineteenth-century Tanzania. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 5(1), 45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Childe, V. G. (1928). The most ancient Near East: The oriental prelude to European prehistory. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  10. Childe, V. G. (1930). The Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Colburn, H. P., & Hughes, R. C. (2010). Movement and materiality: Mobile cores and the archaeology of political boundaries. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 25(2), 43–56.Google Scholar
  12. Creswell, T. (2010). Towards a politics of mobility. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life (S. Rendall, Trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. De Cunzo, L. A. (2001). On reforming the “fallen” and beyond: Transforming continuity at the Magdalen Society of Philadelphia, 1845–1916. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 5(1), 19–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Cunzo, L. A. (2006). Exploring the institution: Reform, confinement, social change. In M. Hall & S. Silliman (Eds.), Historical archaeology (pp. 167–189). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Edgeworth, M. (2011a). Fluid pasts: Archaeology of flow. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  17. Edgeworth, M. (2011b). Manifesto for archaeology of flow. Archaeology. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University (October 25, 2011). http://traumwerk.stanford.edu/archaeolog/2011/10/manifesto_for_archaeology_of_f.html
  18. Games, A. (1999). Migration and the origins of the English Atlantic World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Games, A. (2006a). Atlantic history: Definitions, challenges, and opportunities. American Historical Review, 111(3), 741–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Games, A. (2006b). Beyond the Atlantic: English globetrotters and transoceanic connections. William and Mary Quarterly, 3d Series, 63(4), 675–692.Google Scholar
  21. Games, A. (2008). The web of empire: English cosmopolitans in an age of expansion, 1560–1660. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibson, E. (2007). The archaeology of movement in a Mediterranean landscape. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 20(1), 61–87.Google Scholar
  23. Gimbutas, M. (1990). Review of Archaeology and language: The puzzle of Indo-European origins. American Historical Review, 95(1), 125–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haraway, D. J. (2003). The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people, and significant otherness. Chicago, IL: Prickly Paradigm Press.Google Scholar
  25. Haraway, D. J. (2008). When species meet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hutchins, K. A., & Beaudry, M. C. (2013). Unblended America: Contesting race and place in nineteenth-century New England. In T. Clack (Ed.), Archaeology, syncretism, creolisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Ingold, T. (1993). The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology, 25(2), 152–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, M. (2007). Ideas of landscape. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kelly, R. L. (1992). Mobility/sedentism: Concepts, archaeological measures, and effects. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuhn, A. (1995). Family secrets: Acts of memory and imagination. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  32. Kuo, K. L. (2005). From bamboo fence to mansion—A history of armed force military dependent quarters. Taipei: Military History and Translation Office of the Ministry of National Defense.Google Scholar
  33. Liu, S.-T. (2012). Settler urban legacies: A case study of Taipei City. Cities: The International Journal of Urban Policy and Planning. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.06.018 (online first).
  34. Manthorpe, J. (2005). Forbidden nation: A history of Taiwan. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  35. Montelius, O. (1899). Der Orient und Europa. Stockholm: Königliche Akademie der schönen Wissenschaften, Geschifte und Alterthumskunde.Google Scholar
  36. Moskenska, G., & Myers, A. (Eds.). (2011). Archaeologies of internment. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Nordic TAG. (2011). After Gimbutas. Mobility of culture in 21st century archaeology (archived). Theoretical Archaeology Group 2011. Kalmar: Linnéuniversitetet (March 15, 2011). http://lnu.se/om-lnu/konferenser/nordic-tag-2011-/-after-gimbutas-mobility-of-culture-in-21st-century-archaeology
  38. Olivier, L. (2004). The past of the present: Archaeological memory and time. Archaeological Dialogues, 10(2), 204–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Olivier, L. (2008). Le sombre abîme du temps. Mémoire et archéologie. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  40. Olsen, B. (2010). In defense of things: Archaeology and the ontology of objects. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.Google Scholar
  41. Petrie, W. M. F. (1939). The making of Egypt. London: Sheldon.Google Scholar
  42. Reisner, G. A. (1909). Archaeological survey of Nubia, bulletin no. 3. Cairo: National Printing Department.Google Scholar
  43. Renfrew, C. (1988). Archaeology and language: The puzzle of Indo-European origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Sellet, F., Greaves, R. D., & Yu, P.-L. (Eds.). (2006). Archaeology and ethnography of mobility. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
  45. Seymour, D. (2009a). Nineteenth-century Apache wickiups: Historically documented models of archaeological signatures of the dwellings of mobile people. Antiquity, 83(319), 157–164.Google Scholar
  46. Seymour, D. (2009b). Distinctive places, suitable spaces: Conceptualizing mobile group occupational duration and landscape use. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 13(3), 255–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38, 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Strathern, M. (1991). Partial connections. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  49. TAG at Brown. (2010). Archaeological ambulations: Integrative approaches to movement (archived). Theoretical Archaeology Group 2010. Providence, RI: Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World Workspace (October 22, 2010). http://proteus.brown.edu/tag2010/8050
  50. Thomas, J. (1996). Time, culture and identity: An interpretive archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Tilley, C. (1994). A phenomenology of landscape: Places, paths, and monuments. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  52. Tolia-Kelly, D. (2006). Mobility/stability: British Asian cultures of “landscape and Englishness.” Environment and Planning A, 38, 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. TOPOI, 2011. (2011). Workshop: Computational approaches to movement in archaeology. Berlin: Excellence Cluster TOPOI (November 14, 2011). http://www.topoi.org/event/computational-approaches-to-movement-in-archaeology/
  54. Turner, V. W. (1974). Dramas, fields, and metaphors: Symbolic action in human society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Whatmore, S. (2002). Hybrid geographies: Natures, cultures, spaces. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchaeologyBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations