Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

An Interview with Duncan Garrow: Talking about Practice Theory and Social Change

Layers of earth

Abstract

Archaeologists describe changes in the distant past, basing their analyses on fragmentary remains of practices, people and material worlds. In this interview, Duncan Garrow talks about different methods of interpreting change in the archaeological record, beginning with questions of chronology, periodisation, and the tension between linear accounts of time and more complex understandings of the past. Duncan reflects on what radiocarbon dating and other scientific methods make visible, and on the uncertainties and absences which are integral to archaeological work. In discussing these issues, we range across questions of scale, regularity, innovation and the relation between objects and practices. We talk about how archaeological periods illuminate and artificially constrain interpretations of change, how material remains relate to practices at different temporal resolutions, and why change is more readily identified than explained.

Keywords

archaeology, categorisation, chronology, materiality, periodisation

PDF HTML

References

  1. Garrow D. (2012) ‘Odd Deposits and Average Practice. A Critical History of the Concept of Structured Deposition. Archaeological Dialogues’, 19(2), pp. 85-115. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203812000141
  2. Garrow, D., Meadows, J., Evans, C. and Tabor, J. (2014) ‘Dating the Dead: A High-Resolution Radiocarbon Chronology of Burial within an Early Bronze Age Barrow Cemetery at Over, Cambridgeshire’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 80, pp. 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2014.2
  3. Gosden, C. (2005) ‘What Do Objects Want?’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 12, pp. 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-005-6928-x
  4. Griffiths, S., Carlin, N., Edwards, B. et al. (2023) ‘Events, Narrative and Data: Why New Chronologies or Ethically Bayesian Approaches Should Change How We Write Archaeology’, Journal of Social Archaeology, 23(2), pp. 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/14696053231153499

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.