The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rethinking emotion and material culture
Abstract
In this article, we wish to return to the suggestion made by Sarah Tarlow a decade ago about the importance of understanding emotions in archaeology as a central facet of human being and human actions. We suggest a further expansion of this that focuses exclusively on the relationship between material culture and emotions (as opposed to textually, verbally or iconographically informed approaches), and offer a vocabulary that may better equip archaeologists to incorporate emotions into their interpretations. We attempt to show the implications of such a vocabulary in a specific British Neolithic case study at the henge monument of Mount Pleasant.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This has theoretical implications for our ability to delineate and map a richer and more nuanced set of relational capacities and to develop methodologies for realising the potential of frameworks and heuristics such as assemblages and affective fields.
“This in turn has theoretical implications with respect to our ability to delineate and map not only a richer and more nuanced set of relational capacities, but through these begin to develop methodologies for realising the potential of powerful new frameworks and heuristics such as assemblages and affective fields (e.g.Fowler 2013, 20-58;Harris and Sørensen 2010).”
From Mapping invisibility: GIS approaches to the analysis of hiding and seclusion (2015) · cites this paper as Harris and Sørensen 2010
Citations
Cites
Emotion, cognition, and behavior
Dolan, R. J. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1076358 · Cited by 1,979
Miller, D. (2005) · Materiality · doi:10.1215/9780822386711-001 · Cited by 521 · cited 1×
“This argument is supported by the range of work in different disciplines that now emphasizes that human beings and material things recursively shape each other (Gell 1998; Latour 1993; Miller 2005; Webmoor and Witmore 2008).”
BackgroundThe aesthetics of depositional practice
Pollard, J. (2001) · World Archaeology · doi:10.1080/00438240120079316 · Cited by 106
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mapping invisibility: GIS approaches to the analysis of hiding and seclusion
Gillings, M. (2015) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2015.06.015 · Cited by 71
Metadata
- Authors
- Harris, O. J. T., & Sørensen, T. F.
- Venue
- Archaeological Dialogues
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2010-11-16
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 145-163
- ISSN
- 1380-2038
- 1478-2294
- Cited by
- 116
- References
- 3
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
