Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online

Chapter Title

Non-places in Archaeology

Copyright Year

2013

Copyright Holder

Springer Science+Business Media New York

Corresponding Author

Family Name

Nakamura

Particle
Given Name

Carolyn

Suffix
Organization/University

Leiden University

Postbox

9515

City

Leiden

Postcode

2300 RA

Country

The Netherlands

Email

cnak10@gmail.com

Email

c.m.nakamura@hum.leidenuniv.nl

Comp. by: THAMIZHVEL V Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1577

Date:7/5/13 Time:23:14:55 Page Number: 1

Title Name: EGA

Non-places in Archaeology

Carolyn Nakamura
Leiden University, Leiden,
The Netherlands

4
5

Introduction

The question of non-places in archaeological

research is likely to evoke strange reactions
from archaeologists and non-archaeologists
alike. In both a practical and discursive sense,
archaeology is in the very business of making
places as it substantively engages in processes
of materializing and articulating the absent, the
forgotten, the concealed, or even the excessive
(Buchli et al. 2001: 171). Namely, archaeology
articulates these undisclosed figures and
processes as distinctive places, what we have
come to understand as archaeological sites and
the past.
How, then, are we to understand the archaeology of non-places? The term non-place used by
archaeologists comes from the French anthropologist, Marc Auge, who views non-places (nonlieux) as an opposite polarity to anthropological
places, which are generally regarded as localized, organic, familiar, known, occupied, and
meaningful to both occupants and observers
(Merriman 2004). Places come into being
through the ongoing negotiation of social relations, shared histories, and identities (Auge
1995). While non-places take part in this

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

negotiation, they represent the negative polarities

of such processes. Moreover, for Auge,
non-places and their proliferation are
a distinctive characteristic of supermodernity
and include spaces of transit or faceless transaction that tend to evoke feelings of isolation,
detachment, and suspension. In short, non-places
appear to lack a sociality characterized by a sense
of rootedness, attachment, and belonging.
Evocative of transience, suspension, and
unrootedness, non-places orient the archaeological gaze towards the abject, the subaltern, and the
marginalized. These subjects are often viewed as
the embarrassing underside of history and
society, as they remind us of humanitys failings,
malice, and brutality; they also evoke feelings of
alienation, isolation, and willful forgetting.
Histories of the abject and dispossessed often
dissolve into non-places the scars or ruins of
modernity (or history) because they inspire
little if any personal or collective investment in
them (Moran 2004). But the material record does
maintain traces of such histories and archaeology
stands to offer a unique perspective into those
histories of human society and culture largely
neglected by or inaccessible to discursive
productions of scholarly analysis.
The archaeology of non-place, then, marks
a critical turn to actively incorporate histories of
the subaltern and dispossessed into the field of
archaeological knowledge. While the concept of
non-place has particular resonance with those
who study the archaeology of the contemporary
past or present (Gonzalez-Ruibal 2008; Harrison

C. Smith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2,

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

Comp. by: THAMIZHVEL V Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1577

Date:7/5/13 Time:23:14:55 Page Number: 2

N
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81

Title Name: EGA

& Schofield 2010; Harrison 2011), its application

need not be limited to examinations of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Processes of
exclusion and marginalization as well as experiences of alienation and isolation are not restricted
to the (post/super) modern experience. They are
a part of almost every complex society.
We might therefore refigure the concept of
non-place in terms of the more general idea of
an archaeology of alienation articulated through
material, social, spatial, and temporal vectors.
This specific attention to subaltern histories
provides a fuller archaeological accounts of
the past and gives the discipline some political
teeth in its accounts of the historical past and the
present.

82

Key Issues/Current Debates

83

Auges Non-lieu
We should begin by revisiting Auges specific
idea of non-place and why it has gained some
traction in archaeological circles. While the term
non-place has appeared in many, it is a concept
that has received much critical attention and has
received much criticism, much of which is
valid and some of which likely derives from
miscues from the peculiar style of this particular
ethnographic project. Merriman notes that
Non-Lieux, Introduction a` une anthropologie de
la surmodernite (1992) should be taken as a form
of self-analysis through a fictional style of ethnological writing (2004: 149). With this project,
Auge does not seek to present multitude of potential experiences. With reductive simplicity, Auge
states: If a place can be defined as relational,
historical and concerned with identity, a space
which cannot be defined as relational, or historical, or concerned with identity will be
a non-place (Auge 1995: 78). His analysis
focuses on spaces of transit airport lounges,
motorways, theme parks, supermarkets, and
motels that he sees as coming into experience
and memory only partially formed. These are
non-places, material, physical, and inherently
transitional.

84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109

Non-places in Archaeology

Contrary to Auges Pierre Dupont in fluid

movement, there are many who would not
experience these spaces as non-relational,
nonhistorical, or sites of non-identity. There are
also places where people get stuck, sometimes to
the extent that they become suspended in (and in
some ways defined by) their denied access to
history, social relations, and identity. Auges
style of semi-fictional, ethnological self-analysis
asserts one perspective over numerous other
possibilities, including those that would foster
a more habitual, long-standing engagement with
these spaces. Given this limited vision, Auges
conceptualization of the non-place has been
criticized as being conceptually blunt and lacking
the nuance necessary to address the heterogeneous complexity of sociomaterial forms,
relations, and networks (see Merriman 2004:
147-152, Latour 1993: 100-1). Despite this
limitation, Auge, in the end, does retreat from
a blunt opposition between place and non-place.
Rather, he underscores the co-constitutive play
that defines the relationship between the two:
[non-place] never exists in its pure form; places
reconstitute themselves in it; relations are
restored and resumed in it . . . Place and nonplace are rather like opposed polarities: the first
is never completely erased, the second is never
totally completed; they are like palimsests on
which the scrambled game of identity and relations is ceaselessly rewritten (Auge 1995: 78-9).
The often quoted definition of non-places as
non-relational, non-historical and not about
identity is therefore misleading. Non-places are
not relationally and socially bereft; rather, they
provoke and enable modes and socialities
of dwelling-in-movement or dwelling-inbetweenness as a counterpoint to dwelling-inplace (see also Sekedat & Aldred 2011). As
Auge states, a person entering a space of nonplace is relieved of his usual determinants. He
becomes no more than what he does or experiences in the role of traveller, customer or driver
(1995: 103). But this description of non-place
assumes that the social game is always being
played elsewhere, namely, in a place (Auge 1995:
111). However, the gentle form of possession
one might experience in non-places what Auge

110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157

Comp. by: THAMIZHVEL V Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1577

Date:7/5/13 Time:23:14:55 Page Number: 3

Title Name: EGA

Non-places in Archaeology
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193

describes as identity-loss is not always

temporary or gentle. Those non-places that
delineate the margins rather than the articulating
nodes of society slums, refugee camps, tent
towns, clandestine detention centers can
suspend their dwellers in a long-term or even
semipermanent state of transience and negation.
For pavement dwellers, slum residents, refugees,
and numerous others, dispossession becomes
a significant part of their identity and relations.
In a sense, non-places produce non-persons
those stripped of the basic social determinants
that allow their full recognition by the state and
other members of society. In some cases this
stripped state is not merely temporary. Abject
non-places differ from locations such as airports,
transit systems, and shopping malls in the sense
that their visitors do not engage in contractual
relations with such spaces or the powers that
govern them (see Auge 1995: 101). There is no
checkout counter, toll booth, or passport control
from which one can retrieve and assert his or
her identity, reclaiming the rights and recognition
it entails. The camp, slum, or detention center is
often marked by the lack of contractual relations.
Here, the contract is null and void. Transience,
suspension, and nonrecognition become a way of
dwelling (in relation to the governing powers
and normative practices), and the non-place
takes on place-like qualities, where travelers
are forced to grow roots, as it were. Non-places
at the social, economic, and political margins
critically demonstrate how the interplay of place
and non-place articulate complex, heterogeneous, and dynamic constitutions of social spaces
and agents.

194

Examples

195

Contemporary spaces of the abject and the

dispossessed perhaps have most captivated the
archaeological gaze focused on the present day.
Not trivially, it is in the examination and constitution of material traces of the abject, alienated,
and subaltern that marks a critical archaeological
contribution to contemporary culture studies
(Buchli et al. 2001; Buchli 2007; Harrison &

196
197
198
199
200
201
202

Schofield 2010). Archaeological expertise is not

just about locating and illuminating a distant and
remote past. Rather, on a more general level, it is
about uncovering that which has remained
unspoken, hidden, or overlooked. Unlike other
disciplinary forays into contemporary material
culture studies that tend to aim at discursive
forms, archaeology, by necessity, has become
adept at negotiating the non-discursive,
quotidian traces human activity. This focus is
critical: through the archaeological attention to
non-discursive, taken-for-granted activities, the
archaeological act comes directly into contact
with the subaltern, the dispossessed and the
abject (Buchli et al. 2001: 14). Buchli and
Lucas critically remind us that the realm of discourse (and the realm of most scholarly work) is
the realm of the enfranchised, whereas the
non-discursive realm of the quotidian and
taken-for-granted often leaves the only traces of
subaltern activities and experiences (Buchli et al.
2001: 14). In the study of the contemporary past,
archaeology can uniquely examine and help
constitute the histories of those people whom
society pushes to the margins. Indeed, many
scholars argue that given this distinctive position,
archaeology has a particular obligation to
bring to light those obscured and often painful
pasts that haunt contemporary life, and
a responsibility to the individuals, communities
and institutions implicated by archaeological
work to help them come to terms with their recent
hidden histories and ongoing circumstances
(Buchli 2007; Harrison & Schofield 2010: 9,
Zimmerman et al. 2010).
An emergent archaeological subfield now
focuses on spaces of the abject or the scars of
modernity (Gonzalez-Ruibal 2008), such as mass
graves and genocide (Crossland 2000, 2002;
Funari & Zarankin 2006, Ferrandiz 2006;
Gonzalez-Ruibal 2008); landscapes of war and
conflict (Schofield 2005, 2009; Saunders 2007);
concentration camps (Kola 2001, Myers 2010,
Myers & Moshenska 2011); the homeless
(Zimmerman & Welch 2006), the welfare state
(Harrison 2009), abandoned buildings, parks, and
towns (Edensor 2005; Pringle 2009; Andreassen
et al. 2010), and places devastated by disasters

203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250

Comp. by: THAMIZHVEL V Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1577

Date:7/5/13 Time:23:14:56 Page Number: 4

N
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298

Title Name: EGA

(Gould 2007). These are non-places of the recent

past and present, but both have a distinct orientation towards articulating a particular history of
the modern condition. Many of these engage with
and extend studies of the contemporary past
(Rathje 1979; Gould & Schiffer 1981; Buchli
1999; Graves-Brown 2000; Buchli et al. 2001;
Rathje & Murphy 2001) and combine conventional archaeological methods and analyses with
those from ethnography and textual, material, and
visual culture studies. Oftentimes, there are
explicit political projects underwriting the study
of modernitys detritus and failures, whether it is
putting archaeology to work as bearing witness to
an abject, forgotten past, or as a kind of therapeutic project in reconciliation and retribution or as
a political commentary on the conditions and
issues of the present (Harrison & Schofield
2010: 149). In this arena, archaeology gains political teeth and social relevance and, in many
instances, aligns itself with social justice and
heritage ethics.
The challenge of non-places also brings
attention to the noninvasive methodologies of
archaeological analysis and how they can be
uniquely employed in the study of the present.
Archaeological non-places are not just abandoned ruins and uninhabited sites hiding in plain
sight (Harrison & Schofield 2010). They are, of
course, also inhabited. Indeed some archaeological methods combined with new technologies can
be used to examine physically inaccessible sites.
Adrian Myers has used Google Earth to track the
growth of Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay,
demonstrating how traditional archaeological
analyses combined with satellite imagery can
quantify the material manifestations of secretive
government policies (2010). When applied
towards challenging official governments statements, the use of such viewing technology can
serve to democratize the panoptic gaze
traditionally reserved for the powerful (Bernbeck
2008); importantly however, Myers reminds us
that it also produces an essentially distancing and
potentially dehumanizing perspective and thus
should be used ethnically, ideally in concert
with other more intimate, on-the-ground
archaeological techniques (Bernbeck 2008). On

Non-places in Archaeology

the flip side, archaeologists are also employing

standard archaeological methods such as survey,
mapping, photography, and artifact collection to
study transiently inhabited sites such as Black
Rock City at Burning Man (Carolyn L. White)
and the sites and material culture of undocumented migrants crossing the southwest
American border (Jason P. de Leon).

299

Future Directions

307

From Auge to the archaeologists that have

mobilized his concept, the non-place appears as
a distinctly modern or contemporary feature of
society. However, I would argue that a theory and
politics of non-place could have a much broader
application in archaeology. What is common in
all accounts and applications of the non-place are
notions of alienation and suspended recognition
that take on spatial and material entailments.
Non-places, past and present, direct our attention
to those histories that often lie outside the lines of
traditional archaeological inquiry the more
visible hegemonic and normative practices and
structures. And yet, as Victor Buchli, Gavin
Lucas, and others have persuasively argued,
archaeology is uniquely equipped to deal with
the unarticulated histories of the dispossessed
and subaltern. Furthermore, such histories
provide important and evocative counterpoints
to dominant historical modes and narratives we
have so far produced and stand to provide
a richer and more balanced picture of the human
condition in various times at various places.
Archaeology has made some notable strides in
this general direction. For decades, many
researchers have increasingly pursued archaeologies from below. Many projects now form
research questions around and implement
methodologies to analyze quotidian activities
and practices, and there is an expanded focus on
non-elite and non-monumental structures and
sites. But these projects still maintain a distinct
focus on normative, dominant structures rather
than on the subaltern and alienated. The question
then is how might one locate a non-place (which
may or may not have been materially enduring) in

308

300
301
302
303
304
305
306

309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343

Comp. by: THAMIZHVEL V Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1577

Date:7/5/13 Time:23:14:56 Page Number: 5

Title Name: EGA

Non-places in Archaeology
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391

the archaeological record, especially in the

absence of written records and archives that
may have marked its existence? If we are speaking of locating sites such as ancient detention
areas, or refugee camps, then it is often a matter
of luck (for example, the fortuitous finding at
Vindolanda during the 2011 excavations). But
merely locating such non-places is not tantamount to an archaeology of non-place. Rather, it
is a particular kind of (postcolonial) attention to
the analysis of human activity that constitutes
such a project.
Attending to the pasts and histories of those at
the social margins, embraces a certain kind of
postcolonial logic and also stands to provide
a more resonant and fuller account of the past.
While articulating the histories of the subaltern
and abject in ancient times may lack the political
urgency of similar projects focused on the present
(there is no chance of generating strategies for
political change), these histories nonetheless may
testify to the lives and conditions of persons
from diverse sectors of society but also complicate and challenge our current understandings of
ancient hegemonic forms. Just as detention centers, homeless camps and abandoned theme parks
reveal the abuses, inequalities, and failures of
modern societies and thus contribute to a more
balanced view of modernity; the study of past
non-places may similarly provide more nuanced
accounts of ancient life and societies.
An archaeology of non-place thus requires
a shift in perspective and mode of intellectual
inquiry. Following Ian Lilley, subaltern and
marginal histories should not only be articulated
and investigated; rather, it is also a matter of
moving the interests of the periphery to the
center (2011: 142). This shift should not only
apply to contexts of the recent or contemporary
past. Rather it should inform the archaeological
project more broadly. The greater value of doing
an archaeology of non-place lies in the way it
stands to fill in some discursive blind spots of
traditional archaeological knowledge. What
interpretive possibilities emerge when we focus
our analytical gaze first on the place of transit, the
slum, the ludic object, or daily practices of the
dispossessed? Situating the spatio-material

entailments of alienation at the center of archaeological inquiry does the double work of compelling researchers to ask why certain places,
objects, and narratives have been written out of
history while at the same time asserting their right
to be recorded in the archaeological record.
Within archaeology, Auges concept of
non-lieu connects sites of transition, movement,
and in-betweenness to states of alienation,
abjection, and dispossession. Given the unique
expertise of archaeology in dealing with
non-discursive material traces and remains, the
discipline has a certain obligation to further
pursue and develop its interpretive sensibilities
to include those pasts and histories which have
been historically excluded.

392

Cross-References

408

Internment and Prisoners of War

Politics and Archaeology in History
Postcolonial Archaeologies
Supermodernity and Archaeology

393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407

409
410
411
412

References

413

ALDRED, O. 2011. Part 3. In-betweeness and chiasma.

Moving on to mobility: Archaeological ambulations
on the mobile world. Stanford, California: Stanford
University, 2011. Available at: http://traumwerk.
stanford.edu/archaeolog/2011/02/part_3_of_moving_
on_to_mobilit.html.
ANDREASSEN, E., H. BJERCK & B. OLSEN. 2010. Persistent
memories. Pyramiden - a Soviet mining town in the
High Arctic. Tapir Akademisk Forlag, Trondheim.
AUGE, M. 1995. Non-places: introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity. Verso.
BERNBECK, R. 2008. Structural violence in archaeology.
Archaeologies 4(3): 390413.
BUCHLI, V. 1999. An archaeology of socialism. Berg,
Oxford: New York.
- 2007. Opinion. Conservation Bulletin 56: 14.
BUCHLI, V., LUCAS, G. & COX, M. 2001. Archaeologies of
the contemporary past. Routledge, London:
New York.
CROSSLAND, Z. 2000. Buried lives: forensic archaeology
and Argentinas disappeared. Archaeological
Dialogues 7(2): 146159.
- 2002. Violent spaces: conflict over the reappearance of
Argentinas disappeared, in J. Schofield, C.M. Beck &
W.G. Johnson (ed.) The archaeology of 20th century

414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438

Comp. by: THAMIZHVEL V Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1577

Date:7/5/13 Time:23:14:57 Page Number: 6

N
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496

Title Name: EGA

conflict (One World Archaeology): 115131. London:

Routledge.
EDENSOR, T. 2005. Industrial ruins: space, aesthetics and
materiality. First. Berg Publishers.
FERRANDIZ, F. 2006. The return of civil war ghosts: the
ethnography of exhumations in contemporary Spain.
Anthropology Today, Anthropology Today 22(3):
712.
- 2008. Time to destroy: an archaeology of
supermodernity [with comments]. Current Anthropology 49(2): 247279.
- 2011. Digging Francos trenches: an archaeological
investigation of a nationalist position from the Spanish
Civil War. Journal Of Conflict Archaeology 6(2):
97123.
FUNARI, P. & ZARANKIN, A. 2006. Arqueologa de la
represion y resistencia en America Latina en al era
de las dictaturas (decadas de 19601980). Encuentro
Grupo Editor, Cordoba.
GOULD, R.A. 2007. Disaster archaeology. University of
Utah Press.
GOULD, R.A. & M.B. SCHIFFER. 1981. Modern material
culture: the archaeology of us. Academic Press.
GRAVES-BROWN, P. 2000. Matter, materiality, and modern
culture. Routledge, London: New York.
HARRISON, R. 2009. Towards an archaeology of the welfare
state in Britain. Archaeologies 5(2): 238262.
- 2011. Surface assemblages. Towards an archaeology in
and of the present. Archaeological Dialogues 18(02):
141161.
HARRISON, R. & J. SCHOFIELD. 2010. After modernity:
archaeological approaches to the contemporary past.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
KOLA, A. 2001. Badania archeologiczne terenu byego
obozu zagady Zydow w Sobiborze. Przeszosc i
Pamiec. Biuletyn Rady Ochroni Pamieci Walk i
Meczenstwa 4: 115122.
LATOUR, B. 1993. We have never been modern. Cambridge
(MA): Harvard University Press.
MERRIMAN, P. 2004. Driving places Marc Auge,
non-places, and the geographies of Englands M1
motorway. Theory, Culture & Society 21(4-5):
145167.
MORAN, J. 2004. History, memory and the everyday.
Rethinking History 8(1): 5168.
MYERS, A. 2010. Camp Delta, Google Earth and the ethics
of remote sensing in archaeology. World Archaeology
42(3): 455467.
MYERS, A & G. MOSHENSKA. (ed.) 2011. Archaeologies of
internment (One World Archaeology). New York:
Springer.
PRINGLE, H. 2009. Witness to genocide. Archaeology
Magazine 62(1). Available at: http://www.archaeology.org/0901/etc/iraq.html.
RATHJE, W. L. 1979. Modern material culture studies, in
B. Michael & Schiffer (ed.) Advances in archaeological method and theory: 137. New York: Academic
Press.

Non-places in Archaeology
RATHJE, W. L. & MURPHY, C. 2001. Rubbish! The archaeology of Garbage. Tucson: University of Arizona
Press.
SAUNDERS, N.J. 2007. Killing time: archaeology and the
First World War. Sutton.
SCHOFIELD, J. 2005. Combat archaeology: material culture
and modern conflict. Duckworth.
- 2009. Aftermath: readings in the archaeology of recent
conflict. New York: Springer.
ZIMMERMAN, L. J. & WELCH, J. 2006. Toward an archaeology of homelessness. Anthropology News 47(2):54.
ZIMMERMAN, L. J., SINGLETON, C., & WELCH, J. 2010. Activism and creating a translational archaeology of homelessness. World Archaeology 42(3): 443454.
DOI:10.1080/00438243.2010.497400.

497

Further Reading

512

BECK, C. M., W. G. JOHNSON & J. SCHOFIELD. (ed.) 2002

Materiel culture: the archaeology of twentieth-century
conflict. London: Routledge.
BENDER, B. 2001. Landscapes on-the-move. Journal of
Social Archaeology 1(1): 7589.
BUCHLI, V., G. LUCAS & M. COX. 2001. Archaeologies of
the contemporary past. London: Routledge.
GONZALEZ-RUIBAL, A. 2006. The dream of reason. Journal
of Social Archaeology 6(2): 175201.
GRAVES-BROWN, P. 2011. Touching from a distance:
alienation, abjection, estrangement and archaeology.
Norwegian Archaeological Review 44(2): 131144.
HAGLUND, W.D., M. CONNOR & D.D. SCOTT. 2001. The
archaeology of contemporary mass graves. Historical
Archaeology 35(1): 5769.
HALL, M. 2000. Archaeology and the modern world:
colonial transcripts in South Africa and Chesapeake.
Routledge.
LEMAIRE, T. 1997. Archaeology between the invention and
the destruction of the landscape. Archaeological Dialogues 4(01): 521.
SRENSEN, T.F. 2009. The presence of the dead. Journal of
Social Archaeology 9(1): 110135.
THEUNE, C. 2010. Historical archaeology in national
socialist concentration camps in central Europe.
Historische Archaologie 2. Available at: http://www.
histarch.uni-kiel.de/2010_Theune_high.pdf.
WEINER, J.F. 2011. The appropriation of an Aboriginal
landscape in northern New South Wales. The
Australian Journal of Anthropology 22(2): 189202.
ZARANKIN, A. & C. NIRO. 2009. The materialization of
sadism; archaeology of architecture in clandestine
detention centers (Argentinean military dictatorship,
19761983), in P. Funari, A. Zarankin & M. Salerno
(ed.) Memories from darkness: 5777. New York:
Springer.
ZARANKIN, A. & M. SALERNO. 2011. The engineering of
genocide: an archaeology of dictatorship in Argentina,
in A. Myers & G. Moshenska (ed.) Archaeologies of
internment: 207227. New York: Springer.

513

498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511

514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552