Norwegian Archaeological Review

ISSN: 0029-3652 (Print) 1502-7678 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sarc20

Archaeological (Digital) Maps as Performances:

Towards Alternative Mappings

Piraye Hacıgüzeller

To cite this article: Piraye Hacıgüzeller (2017): Archaeological (Digital) Maps as

Performances: Towards Alternative Mappings, Norwegian Archaeological Review, DOI:
10.1080/00293652.2017.1393456

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2017.1393456

Published online: 30 Oct 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=sarc20

Download by: [Piraye Haciguzeller] Date: 31 October 2017, At: 16:33

 ARTICLE Norwegian Archaeological Review, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2017.1393456

Archaeological (Digital) Maps as

Performances: Towards Alternative
Mappings
PIRAYE HACIGÜZELLER

In this article, a case is made to reconceptualise archaeological cartography

from a performative perspective. Through such a discussion the aim is not only
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017

to render archaeology an active part in related multidisciplinary discussions

within the field of critical mapping but also to open up possibilities for alter-
native mapping practices in the discipline. While pursuing this reconceptualisa-
tion, I first discuss how to rethink maps as performances. Subsequently, I
present understanding archaeological maps as performances as a way to create
alternatives to representational modes of thinking. Finally, I stress the time-
liness of reconceptualising maps as performances in digital age.

Soon enough we have forgotten this is a picture
someone has arranged for us (chopped and
manipulated, selected and coded). Soon enough
… it is the world, it is real, it is … reality (Wood
1992, p. 70, emphasis in original).
INTRODUCTION
Since the 1990s, the combination of ubiqui-
tous internet and digital cartography has
spurred a cartographic golden age. On the
one hand, digital cartographic technologies
(in particular geographical information sys-
tems) have been facilitating the collection,
storage, querying, processing and display of
spatial data with increasing efficiency (cf.
Dodge et al. 2011). On the other hand, the
global rise of the internet, particularly web 2.0
(Gartner 2009, Dodge and Kitchin 2013) and
the mobile web (Peterson 2008), has created
unprecedented opportunities for circulating,
accessing, editing, consulting and populating
maps. As a result, not only the types of maps
but also the number of people, things and
places involved in the mapping process have
proliferated (Perkins 2009a, p. 168).
This great boom of cartography has been
accompanied by a drastic rise in attempts to
rethink maps and cartographic practices,
forming the field known as ‘critical mapping’
or ‘critical cartography’ (cf. Crampton and
Krygier 2006, Kitchin et al. 2009, 2011,
Wood and Krygier 2009). A major issue
tackled early on in these contexts was the
selective and political nature of maps where
they were critised for serving those in power
with, for instance, colonialist, nationalist,
militaristic and capitalist interests (see, e.g.,
Harley 1989, Bassett 1994, Winichakul 1994,
Biggs 1999, Ramaswamy 2001). The critique
expanded in the early 2000s to the generative
role maps play in constructing how people
get to know, experience, understand and

Piraye Hacıgüzeller, Department of Archaeology and Ghent Centre for Digital Humanities, Ghent University, Ghent,
Belgium. E-mail: piraye.haciguzeller@ugent.be

© 2017 Norwegian Archaeological Review

 2 Piraye Hacıgüzeller
deal with the worlds in which they dwell. It is
in this new theoretical context, referred to as
‘post-representational cartography’ (cf.
Kitchin et al. 2009, pp. 10–23, Kitchin
2010, 2014, Caquard 2015, Rossetto 2015)
and more particularly ‘performative and
embodied mapping’ (cf. Crampton 2009, pp.
840–842, Della Dora 2009, Perkins 2009b),
that cartographic performances emerged as a
topic of scrutiny. As outlined in the next
section, reconsidering maps as performances
is treating them as fleeting practices rather
than immutable objects or, as Kitchin and
Dodge (2007, p. 335) put it, ‘coloured ink
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017
on a page’. What matters when maps are
rethought as performances or enactments
(these terms will be used interchangeably
henceforth) is the processes through which
they come into being through practices.
Surprisingly, the burgeoning and nuanced
multi-disciplinary discussion in critical mapping
has had little effect in archaeology where,
despite their crucial role, maps remain consider-
ably under-theorised (see Witmore 2013). The
rejectionist attitude towards maps on the basis
of their power, often encountered in phenomen-
ological approaches to landscape archaeology
(cf. Wheatley 2014, pp. 118–121), is hard to
embrace today given that studies successfully
show how such power can be harnessed to
meet positive ends (Bender 1999, Bender et al.
2006, pp. 307–308, Wood 2010a; see below).
There are few but important productive theories
of archaeological maps and mappings (cf.
Goodwin 1994, Byrne and Nugent 2004,
Witmore 2004, 2006, 2013, Smith 2005,
Webmoor 2005, Tomášková 2007, Wickstead
2009, Shanks and Webmoor 2013, Thomas and
Ross 2013, Lee 2016) and, as their brief presen-
tations below will illustrate, they correspond to
various aspects of the theoretical framework
presented here aiming to reconsider archaeolo-
gical maps as performances.
This article extends and expands these ear-
lier studies by making an explicit call for a
rethinking of archaeological maps as perfor-
mances following a major research trajectory
in the critical mapping literature. It is hoped
that this attempt will accomplish two tasks
beneficial for archaeology. The first task is to
stimulate a discussion of archaeological maps
that engages other disciplines currently contri-
buting to critical mapping studies by focusing
on a commonly scrutinised topic. Given the
key role and long history of maps in the dis-
cipline of archaeology, the isolation of archae-
ology from such multidisciplinary discussions
is a missed opportunity for all parties. The
second task is to open up possibilities for
alternative archaeological cartographies by
breaking away from the hegemonic and
restrictive representational modes of thinking
and practising. Alternative cartographies have
the potential, as discussed below, to bring
archaeology more in line with some of its
contemporary aspirations, namely becoming
more practice- and process-led, reflexive, col-
laborative, emancipatory and risk-taking.
MAPS AS PERFORMANCES
Performance theories have enjoyed a promi-
nent place in cultural theory since the 1990s,
together with associated ideas comprising the-
ories of social practices (cf. Schatzki et al.
2001, Reckwitz 2002), non-representational
theory (see below) and feminist, sociological
and cultural studies of science (e.g. Haraway
1991, Pickering 1995, Knorr-Cetina 1999,
Latour 1999, Mol 2002). The meanings of the
term ‘performance’ have differed widely in
these contexts (cf. Bial 2004, Carlson 2004,
Schechner 2006, States 1996, Thrift and
Dewsbury 2000, for archaeology cf. Inomata
and Coben 2006). Generally though, following
Goffman’s (1959) and Butler’s (1988, 1990,
1993, for archaeology cf. Perry and Joyce
2001) influential ideas, studies have considered
performance as a theatrical metaphor (à la
Goffman) or discursive act (à la Butler) and
used it to come to terms with how identities
and meaning emerge in social life (see also
Gregson and Rose 2000).
In cartographic theory, Butler’s work on
gender performativity has been particularly
influential. Butler argues gender to be
 Archaeological (Digital) Maps as Performances
performative in the sense of being ‘real
only to the extent that it is performed’
(1988, p. 527). With this statement, she
stresses that there is no pre-given state of
being either male or female that serves as a
reference for gender identity. Instead, gen-
der identities as well as norms of femininity
and masculinity are repetitively enacted
through discursive practices. That is, gen-
der reality is contingently re-produced
through performance, i.e. the differential
repetition (Schechner 2006, p. 30) of
known discourses that enact meanings con-
textually. It is therefore the social conse-
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017
quences or (using the proper terminology)
the ‘performative effects’ of these enacted
meanings that produce gender reality,
rather than these meanings being expres-
sions of a fixed gender reality.
Based on Butler’s ideas, the suggestion in
cartographic theory has been to understand
maps as ‘of-the-moment, brought into being
through practices… always remade every
time they are engaged with’ (Kitchin and
Dodge 2007, p. 335, emphasis in original).
Without practices that repetitively enact
maps through interpretations of points,
lines and areas, maps are considered ‘simply
coloured ink on a page’ (Kitchin and
Dodge 2007, p. 335) or pixels on a screen.
As such, there is no inherent, pre-given
quality of a map from the performance per-
spective. Even if a map is intended to have
had such qualities by its creator(s), these
qualities no longer matter once the map
leaves the creator’s hands. In fact, maps
are re-created over and over again at each
instance of interaction with them. What
matters from the performance perspective
is the enactment of maps in often pre-cog-
nitive, non-reflexive and learned ways, or,
in other words, how maps come into being
through repetitive practices during which
similar, precedent acts are non- or semi-
consciously cited. Maps as performances
are therefore always mappings, i.e. enact-
ments of maps (Kitchin and Dodge 2007,
3
p. 335; Kitchin et al. 2009, pp. 20–21).
Kitchin and Dodge (2007, pp. 338–339,
emphasis in original) present this idea
from an individualistic perspective as
follows:
Like a street geometrically defined by urban plan-
ning, and created by urban planners, is transformed
into place by walkers (De Certeau 1984), a spatial
representation created by cartographers (the coloured
ink on the paper) is transformed into a map by indi-
viduals. As each walker experiences the street differ-
ently, each person engaging with a spatial
representation beckons a different map into being.
Each brings it into his or her own milieu, framed by
that individual’s knowledge, skills and spatial
experience.
This novel theory of maps has opened up four
main overlapping research trajectories within
critical mapping studies that regard: moving
beyond binary thinking in cartographic prac-
tice, effects of cartographic performances,
mapping processes and alternative mappings
—the last being a main focus in this article.
As for the first trajectory, unduly restrictive
binary and oppositional distinctions—a hall-
mark of modernist thinking (see Knappett
2004, Thomas 2004, Malafouris 2008,
Witmore 2015)—are commonly employed in
cartography in the form of representation and
practice, representation and reality, map maker
and map user, and map and space (Kitchin et al.
2009, Perkins 2009b). Del Casino and Hanna’s
(2006) ethnographic study is an explicit and
successful attempt to destabilise such binary
thinking by considering maps as performances
(see also Del Casino and Hanna's 2000,
Grasseni 2004). They illustrate how the historic
town of Fredericksburg (Virginia) and its tour-
ism map are impossible to disentangle if one
pays attention to mapping performances taking
place in contexts of map use. In those perfor-
mances, the space and its maps are co-consti-
tuted by a multitude of cartographic practices
carried out by the visitors and tourism workers.
In particular, Del Casino and Hanna observe
the interactions of the people with each other,
 4 Piraye Hacıgüzeller
the historic town and its tourism map in the
event of touristic exploration, happening in a
complex and uniquely unfolding sequences of
acts. The touristic exploration involves dis-
courses, information, conceptualisations,
objects etc. that people bring into the explora-
tion or that emerge at the moment of action. In
this complex interplay of things and people, it is
impossible to ascertain how people’s preconcep-
tions and knowledges about the town of
Fredericksburg generate an interpretation of
the tourism map of the town. Nor is it possible
to disentangle how the skills, experiences and
knowledges involved in interpreting and inter-
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017
acting with the tourism map change people’s
(pre-)cognitive understanding of what
Fredericksburg is. As such, Del Casino and
Hanna manage to demonstrate that the tourism
map in question constitutes (knowledges and
experiences of) the town as much as the town
constitutes the map. This happens to such an
extent, according to the authors, that the separa-
tion of the two, as map and space or representa-
tion and reality, is no longer meaningful (see
also Baudrillard 1994).
In an archaeological example of this first
research trajectory, Witmore (2004) stresses
that, unlike how it is traditionally under-
stood, the archaeological ‘field’ (as in ‘field-
work’) or landscape is not what the map
mirrors. He sees the map as one of the
many fields (together with, for instance, var-
ied materials, instruments, landscape, media
and institutions) involved in the production
of archaeological knowledge that serves to
‘form recursive links to other entities and
locales’ (Witmore 2004, p. 135). Within the
network of fields that situates the archaeo-
logical spatial knowledge then, Witmore
identifies the map (much like other fields)
to be the process of repetitively performing
relations/links with other fields. This way,
he stresses that it is impossible to set the
map apart from the landscape it purport-
edly mirrors or, more generally, from the
network of relations to which the mapped
landscape belongs. Through his account of
Colonel William Martin Leake’s
explorations and recording practices in the
Greek countryside at the beginning of the
19th century, Witmore makes this particular
point clear. He shows that Leake’s mapping
is essentially the process of creating a net-
work of relations; that is, it is the process of
enacting unique links between various enti-
ties including the landscape, Leake’s and
others’ emotions about and experiences
and knowledge of the region, as well as
sextants, theodolites, tapes, maps and writ-
ing utensils he carried around.
The research carried out by Harris and
Hazen (2009) is an example of the second
research trajectory regarding performative
effects. They focus on contemporary conser-
vation-mapping practices through which terri-
tories of protected areas are designated. Some
of the commonly encountered effects of such
practices, according to Harris and Hazen, are:
treating humans and non-humans as separate;
giving priority to the ideas and knowledge of
those who have access to and expertise related
to Western cartography and geographical
information science; and privileging the pro-
tection of those territories and ecosystems that
are easier to map (e.g. forests, islands) over
less mappable ones due to difficulty identify-
ing them in cartographic terms (e.g. grass-
lands, marine preserves). What is worth
noting here is that the concerns in carto-
graphic theory about performative effects of
mappings are similar to those in earlier
research about the power and agency of
maps in the sense that both focus on the con-
texts of map use and consequences of map-
ping. The major questions, in the latter field
specifically, are: what do maps do in the world
in relation to their context, and through which
processes do they carry out these tasks and
make a difference (e.g. Wood 1992, 2010a,
Cosgrove 1999, 2001, Crampton 2003,
Pickles 2004, Wood and Fels 2008)? Within
this particular theoretical framework regard-
ing the power and agency of maps, however,
maps are still taken exclusively as immutable
objects or scripts (see Perkins 2013) and, as
such, lack the conceptual benefits of treating
 Archaeological (Digital) Maps as Performances
them as perpetual performances (Kitchin and
Dodge 2007, p. 334).
Many in archaeology also have questioned
the agency or performative effects of maps,
that is, what maps actually do as part of the
archaeological knowledge-creation processes.
Shanks and Webmoor (2013; see Webmoor
2005) explain, following ‘science-technology-
studies,’ that, like other media, making a
map is creating a new phenomenon onto
which continuously changing and often mate-
rially complex archaeological remains are
transformed. Some of the visual properties of
these material settings are retained in this pro-
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017
cess of transformation while others are over-
looked (Latour 1986, 1999). Through this new
phenomenon, a host of new possibilities for
archaeological practice arise such as extending
the map to cover macro features or change its
scale to fold micro details into it, combining
presentations of these micro and macro fea-
tures, and providing a large amount of
abstracted information about the mapped set-
ting that restores, supplements and augments
human perceptual and cognitive capabilities
(Shanks and Webmoor 2013, pp. 105–106).
Witmore (2006; see Witmore 2013; see also
Smith 2005), also inspired by ‘science-technol-
ogy-studies,’ underlines that possibilities pro-
vided by standardized and repeatable modern
mapping practices and associated instruments
simultaneously limit and facilitate how we
engage with archaeological places. He focuses
on how media traditionally relied on in
archaeological knowledge practices (including
maps as wells as photographs, diagrams, illus-
trations and texts) do not afford an engage-
ment with noises. According to Witmore, such
media are particularly unforgiving to what
philosopher Michel Serres refers to as belles
noiseuses, which are the transient and recur-
rent background noises of everyday life that
can revive memories, connections and associa-
tions. He stresses that ‘the solution is not as
simple as learning how to use … sonic instru-
ments and mobilize sound with the aid of
acoustic software.’ Rather, a good starting
5
place is recognizing ‘how the action of [cur-
rent archaeological] media and instrumental-
ities … directs and enhances particular senses’
and, in the process, dichotomizes seeing and
hearing (Witmore 2006, p. 283). Maps are
considered clearly culpable in his account.
The third research trajectory that opens up
by treating maps as performances and focuses
on mapping processes involves carrying out
ethno-methodological studies or accounting
for map-related experiences in order to exam-
ine how cartographic knowledges, performa-
tive effects and interpretations unfold during
mappings. Brown and Laurier (2005), for
instance, present video recordings of people
interacting with maps in the context of car
journeys that account for the gestures and con-
versations involved. Their ethno-methodologi-
cal study illustrates that maps are not
necessarily interpreted merely on the basis of
the lines, points, polygons, annotations,
legends, etc. on them. Rather, the sequences
of embodied actions in cartographic perfor-
mances appear as a major factor enabling
and disabling map interpretations. As they
highlight, a London city map book used by a
driver, for instance, is only useful if the driver
gets the chance to check the index at the back
despite the prohibitive effects of traffic.
Similarly, the driver can extract meaning from
the map only when she manages to use her
index finger and thumb to bookmark and
trace the grids, and the dense and tangled
arrangement of street names. Neither the use-
fulness of the map nor its interpretations are
pre-given. In another study, Kitchin et al.
(2013) account for different enactments of a
series of maps they produced in the case of
their research on ‘ghost estates’ (i.e. unfinished
residential development projects) in Ireland.
They discuss the effects of these different enact-
ments on public discourse and policy debates.
What they narrate is a complex account of the
differing and contested interpretations and
related performances of the ghost estate maps
in question by the media, public and state as
well as themselves as researchers.
 6 Piraye Hacıgüzeller
In another example to this third trajectory,
Charles Goodwin (Goodwin 1994, pp.
611–615) provides an ethnographical account
of the archaeological mapping process during
fieldwork, presenting two archaeologists
(Sue, the student, and Ann, her professor)
making a ‘profile map.’ Goodwin narrates
how Sue measures the length and depth of
the points to be mapped using a tape measure
in relation to a ruler set as a horizontal refer-
ence line. Ann, on the other hand, puts points
on a piece of graph paper according to the
measurements given by Sue and eventually
connects them to draw a line that denotes
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017
‘what the archaeologist believes are two dif-
ferent layers of dirt’ (Goodwin 1994, p. 612).
What Goodwin aims to analyse in his article
are the ways in which knowledge is produced
through discursive (i.e. meaning-making)
practices in professional contexts, taking
archaeological field excavation as one of his
case studies. It quickly becomes clear through
his narrative that both the profile and the
map in question are clearly performative:
they are only brought about by Ann and
Sue’s unique engagement with them through
discursive practices. There is, in other words,
no pre-given quality to the profile or to the
map. Even the changing slope which Ann
clearly considers to be so real during the
profile drawing, only becomes real when it
is enacted by Ann’s discursive practices.
That is, if Ann did not reproduce the chan-
ging slope as an epistemological object in her
cartographic performance, as narrated by
Goodwin, neither the profile nor the map
would be about the changing slope.
The fourth research trajectory builds on
Butler’s reassuring emphasis that since reality
is ‘understood as constituted’ in performance
theory, it can also be understood as ‘capable
of being constituted differently’ through
alternative practices (Butler 1988, p. 520).
The position opens up possibilities for con-
ceptualising alternative cartographic perfor-
mances and building new kinds of realities
through maps. This trajectory will be the
focus of the two subsequent sections in the
article where first I will present representa-
tional thinking and its related practices in
cartography as one of many possible types of
cartographic performances (albeit currently
the most dominant), and second I will pro-
vide suggestions for alternative archaeologi-
cal mappings (see also Tomášková 2007, pp.
275–280).
REPRESENTATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC
PERFORMANCES
Representational performances in cartography
are characterised by the way in which they are
strictly centred on maps as fixed objects. The
entire map-related performance, of which the
map object is only a part, is often overlooked
in such contexts. The reason for the key role of
maps in these performances is their enactments
as fixed media that purportedly mirror (after
Rorty 1979) and, hence, provide truthful access
to reality while remaining detached from that
reality in order to ensure neutrality (see
Gerlach 2014, pp. 23–25, Kitchin et al. 2009,
pp. 4–8, Pinder 1996, pp. 407–410; see also
Prendergast 2000, Thrift 1996, Ch. 1). It is
due to this detachment that, regardless of
where one interacts with maps, mapped places
are bound to be treated as spaces-out-there in
representational performances; hence the bin-
ary thinking such performances bring about in
the sense of space and map, or reality and
representation. As discussed below through
archaeological examples, mapped places are
inherently constituted in the image of the map
through representational performances because
the map purportedly mirrors these places in an
objective and accurate way.
Cartographic representational performances
can, in fact, be imagined to involve people
treating maps as empowering magical devices
that bring the space of interest into the palms
of their hands. The highly trusted mimetic role
of maps in these performances is quite remark-
able, however, given how little maps and par-
ticularly Western maps are destined to
resemble the world they are supposed to ‘mir-
ror’ (November et al. 2010, p. 589). To
 Archaeological (Digital) Maps as Performances
appreciate this, one needs to simply consider
how the world is changing continuously in
easily witnessable ways; unlike the map in its
representational performances, the mapped
places are never fixed. Moreover, mapped
places are made of countless material, non-
material, animate, inanimate, human and
non-human things that have colours, emotions
and effects, and are entangled with people’s
experiences, memories and embodied self
which is impossible to show on a single map.
It therefore is clearly a matter of strong faith to
take lines, points and areas marked on a paper
or screen as a perfect copy of such a complex
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017
world. Without such faith in maps, representa-
tional performances in cartography cannot
take place.
Where does this faith in representational
qualities of maps come from though, consid-
ering the clear impossibility of exactly mir-
roring the world and its places? The scientific
tradition in the West, which is essentially an
accumulation of effects of representational
performances in different domains for centu-
ries, is where the ideal of perfect representa-
tion showing us the objective truth has been
particularly tenacious (Rorty 1979; see
Coopmans et al. 2014; see also Daston and
Galison 2007). Therefore, it is hardly surpris-
ing that maps produced on the basis of
Western scientific consensus in cartography
(Turnbull 1996) are the most trusted repre-
sentationally and that often take a part in
representational performances.
Sadly, though, such extraordinary trust
often comes with abuse. An often-heard
point of criticism in the case of representa-
tional cartography, unsurprisingly, is that it
seems to have brought about an extreme
dependency on maps, as well as endowing
those maps with authoritative power.
Geographer Brian Harley (1989, p. 1), for
instance, rightly remarks that the Western
map is known to make us doubt ourselves
and our understanding of the world without
it: ‘A maps says to you: “Read me carefully,
follow me closely, doubt me not.” It says, “I
am the earth in the palm of your hand.
7
Without me, you are alone and lost”’ (see
also Pinder 1996, p. 407, Olsson 2007, p.
364). The fable of Lewis Carroll, Sylvie and
Bruno Concluded, which is frequently
referred to in essays on cartographic theory,
also beautifully narrates a case of extreme
representational trust in maps. In the fable,
such trust leads to a concerted cartographic
effort where the territory is mapped out on a
one-to-one scale. A German professor, Mein
Herr, tells the story in Carroll’s tale that the
farmers in the story reject this life-sized map
in the end: ‘they said it would cover the
whole country, and shut out the sunlight!’
says Mein Herr. ‘So we now use the country
itself, as its own map, and I assure you it does
nearly as well’ (Carroll [1893] 2015, p. 392,
emphasis added). If not for a habitually con-
ditioned insecurity caused by a lack of trust-
worthy map, why else would one think that a
map presents the mapped place better than
the mapped place itself?
Wood and Fels have put forward various
examples regarding the severe consequences
of such excessive trust in maps’ representa-
tional qualities (Wood and Fels 2008, Wood
2010a, see Corner 1999). They explain the
mechanisms through which enactments of
maps as trustworthy representations of rea-
lity advance propositions about how the
world really is and, as such, not only describe
the world, but prescribe it.
Inspired by their perspective, we can exam-
ine two examples applicable to archaeology
and, hence, familiar here. Firstly, take a com-
mon way maps in general and archaeological
maps in particular are made: presenting only
matter or, more correctly, res extensa (i.e.
extended thing), which is conceptualised by
Descartes as a purely material substance
(independent from the mind) with extensions
of length, breadth and depth (Cottingham
1993, pp. 124–128, Normore 2008). As
November et al. (2010, p. 591) point out,
representational enactments of such maps
will have the effect of producing mapped
archaeological places as mappable and cal-
culable (see Harvey 2001, p. 220):
 8 Piraye Hacıgüzeller
What Descartes called the res extensa, the material
stuff out of which the real world is supposed to be
made, has the puzzling characteristic of resembling
closely what can be drawn and also calculated on
paper. This ‘close resemblance’ is often (if we dare
say) papered over by simply marvelling at the sheer
coincidence that makes the real world of res extensa
so similar to what can be grasped by calculation,
thus proving the fabulous power of the human mind
—and of God, at least for Descartes.
Specifically, whenever archaeological maps,
enacted only to present the geometric specifica-
tions of res extensa, are trusted as mirrors of
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017
places within a representational performance,
the consequences are significant. Such trust
typically deprives archaeological places of
many things that make them what they are:
sensory perceptions, emotions, desires, bodily
reactions and so on. This is because the absence
of, for instance, emotions during representa-
tional performances of archaeological maps is
not simply a matter of omitting those emotions
temporarily. Instead, since such performances
in cartography involve enactments of maps
that purportedly reflect archaeological places
at a given time truthfully, completely and eter-
nally, omitting any present emotions from
them, is making an authoritative statement
that denies the existence of or at least the rele-
vance of these emotions at archaeological
places (Wood 2010a, pp. 39–42; see also
Tarlow 2000).
As a second example, consider base maps and
layering. Base maps are special cartographic
layers which have become frequently used in
recent decades thanks to the introduction of
digital cartographic technologies, particularly
geographical information systems (GIS). Acts
of layering involve base maps that can be over-
laid by representations of selected spatial phe-
nomena. The latter can then be related to each
other and the base map selectively in visualisa-
tions and analyses (see Curry 1998, p. 31). In
this process, base maps not only serve as a con-
textualising fixed stage for the other layers of the
map but also underlay all other layers with the
implicit claim ‘to ground the most fundamental,
the most material, and, above all, the most
physical reality’ (November et al. 2010, p.
581). Depending on the spatial, temporal and/
or conceptual context, the ‘physical reality’ in
question here may involve the topography,
architecture, geology, soil characteristics, etc.
Other layers overlaid on the base map, on the
other hand, will often comprise presentations of
phenomena considered to be not as perma-
nently, unambiguously and/or independently
present at the mapped place as the things
shown on the base map, such as networks of
exchange relations, artefact distributions, terri-
torial borders, etc. As a testimony to their treat-
ment as ephemeral, dispensable or dodgy
phenomena, these overlaying layers will be
switched on and off frequently during digital
mapping processes. In the case of physical
maps, such overlaying layers must be removed
or adjusted manually by, for instance, toppling
or moving a soldier figure across the base map
laid out on a table—a familiar scene in historical
war movies. During archaeological mapping
carried out with a representational logic, enact-
ments of base maps therefore will reassert that
some phenomena comprising archaeological
places are more permanent, certain and true
than others. To repeat, this is simply because
maps in cartographic representational perfor-
mances are never mere presentations but an
argument in themselves due to the representa-
tional trust vested in them. Specifically, the
argument base maps put forward in representa-
tional performances is that archaeological
places have objectively observable, natural or
primary qualities that are fixed and true in
opposition to subjective, cultural or secondary
qualities that may be delusive, uncertain, faulty
or transient.
In sum, in cartographic performances where
maps are treated as trustworthy representa-
tional media, they are given a type of power
enabling them to dictate too easily how the
world really is. Hence the need for alternative
cartographic performances that can, for
instance, be rewardingly reflexive,
 Archaeological (Digital) Maps as Performances
experimental, pluralistic, and/or emancipatory.
It is to the possibilities and archaeological pro-
mises of these performances that we now can
turn.
TOWARDS ALTERNATIVE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL MAPPINGS
Alternative mappings can be carried out either
by enacting existing maps in new ways or by
creating new types of maps, which are more
conducive to a move beyond representational
logic and related performances.
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017
PERFORMING EXISTING MAPS IN
NEW WAYS
Making existing archaeological maps part of
alternative performances is a challenging
task, given the habitual and familiar nature
of the representational ones. This is espe-
cially true when maps produced through
Western cartographic tradition are involved,
since, as discussed, such maps have a histori-
cally stabilised role in representational per-
formances (Pickles 2004). An effective
strategy enabling alternative cartographic
performances with existing Western maps is
defamiliarisation: creating a sense of aliena-
tion from the map, mapped place and/or
other phenomena involved in mapping.
Defamiliarisation promises reflexivity and
leaves the possibility for novel ways of
accepting the defamiliarised. This is because
defamiliarisation involves enacting a thing in
a way that challenges that thing’s pre-cogni-
tively accepted nature. A commonly recog-
nizable example is saying a familiar word
over and over again until the word loses its
meaning and ‘switch[es] over into a strange
acoustic blast’ (Dreyfus 2001, p. 167). An
example from archaeology involves applying
archaeological methods in contemporary
contexts such as classifying objects at home
by material (e.g. ceramic, plastic) or measur-
ing artefact distribution on a bedroom floor
(Buchli and Lucas 2001, pp. 9–13; see
9
Graves-Brown 2011, p. 136). There is still
much work to be done on expanding defa-
miliarisation strategies in cartography.
Potentially inspiring methods for archaeolo-
gists available at the moment, however, are
techniques used in ‘psychogeographic’ urban
mapping (cf. Pinder 1996, 2005, Wood
2010a, 2010b, pp. 171–177) such as using a
wrong map in order to get lost in places and
rediscover them or ‘algorithmic walking’
with the help of a map which involves strol-
ling in places to be rediscovered following
pre-set rules such as ‘pass three streets, turn
right, pass four streets, turn left, and repeat’
(see also Witmore 2013).
NON-REPRESENTATIONAL MAPPING
PERFORMANCES
When it comes to creating new maps that facil-
itate alternative cartographic performances,
non-representational thinking/theory (NRT),
as it is understood within human geography,
appears as a prominent option. NRT is a
mosaic of theoretical ideas borrowed from, to
name a few: actor-network theory, material cul-
ture studies, post-structuralist feminism, critical
theory, pragmatism, and performance and prac-
tice theories (Vannini 2015, p. 3; see Thrift 1996,
Ch. 1, 2008, Lorimer 2005, Cadman 2009,
Anderson and Harrison 2010, Ingold 2015).
NRT and related practices seek to come to
terms with a relational, ever-changing and com-
plex world that renders any attempts to perfectly
copy it an unsatisfying, if not frustrating, experi-
ence. Rather than the scientifically valid repre-
sentations or correspondences sought after by
more rigid theories, the aspiration of the ‘art/
science’ (Vannini 2015, p. 3) or ‘inexact science’
(Thrift 2008, p. 3) of NRT is to act like ‘a
machine for multiplying questions, and thereby
inventing new relations between thought and
life’ (Thrift 2004, p. 82). NRT therefore expli-
citly opens up possibilities of experimentation
for those who ‘want to generate more space to
be unprecedented, to love what aids fantasy,
and so to gradually break down imaginative
resistance’ (Thrift 2008, p. vii), a type of
 10 Piraye Hacıgüzeller
resistance too often enforced by representa-
tional modes of thinking and related
performances.
Therefore, non-representational perfor-
mances within archaeological cartography,
which could be referred to as ‘experimental
archaeological mappings,’ are to be per-
formed with a light heart, playful spirit and
without any fear of taking risks. Following
calls for an archaeology that lets itself go
beyond a preoccupation to explain the past
once and for all (see, e.g., Hodder 2012,
Olsen et al. 2012, Alberti et al. 2013, Bailey
2014, Watts 2013, Witmore 2014, Edgeworth
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017
2016, Sørensen 2016), archaeological non-
representational cartographic performances
should mainly intend to produce new ques-
tions about archaeological places as well as
new relations that constitute them. Clearly,
such cartographic performances would not
be valued on the basis of how accurately
and objectively they represent archaeological
realities. Rather, in a pragmatist sense (cf.
Baert 2005, Bacon 2012), they could be
valued on the basis of the new practical pos-
sibilities they open up through newly created
relations. That is, for such performances to
be valuable, the new questions, relations and
possibilities they bring about would have to
provide some kind of added value to archae-
ology which is not restricted to copying rea-
lity perfectly but rather, more pluralistically
defined, on the basis of local consensus (see
James 1975[1907], p. 42; Wood 1992, 2010a,
Pickles 2004, pp. 65–68). Depending on the
specific context, being inspiring, interroga-
tive, uniting, playful or simply beautiful can
be one of the many ways, for instance, an
archaeological mapping performance can
offer such added value to the discipline.
An example of a non-representational
mapping performance from archaeology
could involve drawing maps on the basis of
playful archaeological narratives (cf.
Schechner 2006, Ch. 4 on playful perfor-
mances). Figure 1 presents such a map of
the Bronze Age building of Zeta Beta in
Malia (Crete) (cf. Deshayes and Dessenne
1959). In the narrative (see Fig. 1), a person
moves in the building carrying out a sequence
of cooking-related tasks using materials
reported from the excavations. Maps with
two, three or more people can also be created
through similar cartographic performances
(Fig. 2). Although the narratives these maps
are based on is hyper-interpretive and even
speculative (see also Edmonds 1999, 2004),
they playfully enact Building Zeta Beta as an
unmistakably lively place, a locale buzzing
with everyday activities. True to their com-
mitment to NRT, the maps create a produc-
tive tension between categories such as
artistic, scientific and playful as they are posi-
tioned uncomfortably at the intersection of
these qualities. Such maps, produced through
a combination of imagination, archaeologi-
cal knowledge and creative thinking, have
the potential to can enact unforeseen spatial,
material and temporal relations at archaeo-
logical places. They can be used as proxies to
visualise how past everyday places could
become cluttered in the presence of various
numbers of people conducting stationary
tasks and moving across space. This type of
mapping performance also serves as an excel-
lent way to explore relationships between
materials found in archaeological places,
affordance of these materials in the face of
different human practices, as well as details
of architectural configuration that involve
tactile, visual, olfactory, kinesthetic and audi-
tory qualities.
PARTICIPATORY AND/OR
EMANCIPATORY MAPPING
PERFORMANCES
Another alternative to representational carto-
graphic performances is participatory map-
ping. Rather than treating the map object as
a fixed representation that mirrors the world
the focus in such contexts can be, for
instance, the emancipation of participants
and/or engaging these participants with the
archaeological mapping performance. In the
latter case, the cartographic performance
 Archaeological (Digital) Maps as Performances 11
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017

Fig. 1. Single-person playful narrative map for cooking at the Bronze Age building of Zeta Beta in Malia
(Crete). In the narrative, a person takes the lamp in Space XVII (A1) to move into the possibly dark
closet at the northeast of Space X. Arriving at the entrance of the closet (A2), (s)he puts the lamp on the
partitioning wall to his/her right and takes a bowl and a cup. (S)he then goes to the two pithoi standing
along the east wall of Space X (A3), scoops foodstuff out with the cup to fill the bowl and puts the cup into
the pithos. Keeping the bowl in one hand, (s)he grabs the lamp at the side to go back to Space XVII.
Entering the space (A4), (s)he blows out the lamp as the light is no longer necessary thanks to the light of
the open fire. (S)he puts the bowl and lamp on the ground next to the hearth (A5) and goes to take one of
the globular jars filled with water positioned on the green steatite table (A6). (S)he then arrives with the
globular jar next to the hearth and pours water into what is contained in the bowl (in order, for instance, to
soak pulses, to turn flour into dough, to rinse coarsely crushed barley seeds, etc.)(A7).

serves as an opportunity to observe the
shared and negotiated experiences, mem-
ories, emotions and knowledges regarding
mapped archaeological places. In such
cases, participatory mapping essentially is
an empirical methodology to study complex
mechanisms through which archaeological
places are socially produced through carto-
graphic processes. Such a practice- or pro-
cess-led (rather than outcome-led) approach
to cartography evidently sits well with the
contemporary theoretical agendas in archae-
ology which, as summed up by Gosden and
Malafouris (2016, pp. 702–703), typically
prefer understanding (past) reality in terms
of how things become rather than how things
are (see Kitchin and Dodge 2007, p. 335).
Potentially inspiring for archaeologists in
this respect is an example of participatory
mapping process explored by Grasseni
 12 Piraye Hacıgüzeller
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017
Fig. 2. Two-person playful narrative map for cooking at Zeta Beta.
(2004), detailing the production of a hiking
map by a group of residents in the village of
Vedeseta in northern Italy. In the process, the
villagers negotiate how to design the hiking
trail as well as the map on the basis of their
memories and personal daily experiences of
the valley (see also Sletto 2009a, 2014). This
negotiation is a complex process, Grasseni
observes, in which not only the map but
also the mapped place is constituted. This
happens because in the process of map mak-
ing, the villagers remember things about the
landscape, exchange these mnemonic experi-
ences and, as such, re-identify the landscape
through discourse. They also physically mark
the landscape (through signs placed on tree
barks and stones) to facilitate the itinerary as
indicated on existing tourist maps. Grasseni’s
example is therefore an account of how
reality (the mapped landscape) and represen-
tation (the map) is co-constituted by a parti-
cipatory map making process.
When participatory mapping performances
serve emancipatory objectives they may, for
instance, reassert indigenous people’s rights to
land, protect green areas and ecosystems in
the face of development and agribusiness,
oppose military power, and reject surveillance
(Perkins 2007, p. 127; cf. Caquard 2015, pp.
142–143; Louis et al. 2012, Parker 2006,
Perkins 2007, for critical reviews). In the case
of archaeology, similar cartographic perfor-
mances can serve to address various concerns
within the community and indigenous archae-
ologies that ‘hold collaboration as a central
tenet’ (Atalay 2010, p. 419; see, e.g., Bloch
2014, Bruchac 2014, Colwell-Chanthaphonh
2012, Murray 2011; see also Bender 1999).
 Archaeological (Digital) Maps as Performances
Given the existing cases of participatory map-
ping performances in other disciplines (e.g.
Wainwright and Bryan 2009, Sletto 2009b,
2014, Mollett 2013), such performances in
archaeology could arguably be particularly
effective in increasing collaboration between
archaeologists and local communities and in
supporting the recognition and advancement
of the latter’s intellectual, cultural, mnemonic
and territorial rights (see Atalay 2008, Atalay
2010, 2012).
One example of such a participatory map-
ping project in archaeology is Map Orkney
Month where the aim was to engage with
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017
local communities in archaeological contexts
in a creative and innovative way (cf. Lee
2016). Participants of the project, residents
and visitors of Orkney archipelago, were
asked to make a journey in a single day (mid-
night to midnight) and record a ‘site’ on their
way (Lee 2016, 9). They were also asked to
map their travels using handheld GPS equip-
ment (Fig. 3). The participants often fol-
lowed their everyday paths or chose
journeys to enact their knowledge and experi-
ences of Orkney that were special to them
(Fig. 4). As Lee (2016, 3) explains:
The role of ‘archaeology’ within Map Orkney
Month was loose, and most of the ‘archaeologi-
cal’ emerged from participants as they operated
under a perceived archaeology banner …
Guidelines for participants suggested that sites
could be heritage or non-heritage related, and
the archaeology was left up to them. The result
was that many of the project outcomes were
non-archaeological, but were inspired by archae-
ology, albeit in non-traditional and more-than-
representational ways.
The performances in the project challenged
archaeological power structures by explicitly
handing power of archaeological cartogra-
phy to local people. Imaginative sites and
mapping performances were also included in
the project. These imaginative performances
aimed to destabilise well-established dichoto-
mies within archaeology (such as objectivity
13
and subjectivity, past and present, and fact
and fiction) as well as archaeological author-
ity, tradition and power structures. (Lee
2016, pp. 1–2, 14–15). The performances
also intriguingly promoted use of narrative
and memory in archaeological knowledge
production (Lee 2016, pp. 1–2)
A second example of archaeological par-
ticipatory mapping comes from an
Australian context. Byrne and Nugent
(2004) map patterns of movement of
Aboriginal communities on the north coast
of New South Wales. With the attempt to
provide an exemplar case study showing
how indigenous places across landscapes
can be mapped together with stories, emo-
tions and histories associated with them,
Byrne and Nugent (2004, Parts I–II) consult
historical records, identify core areas of
Aboriginal settlement following the white
invasion of the study area in the 1820s, and
study and map the complex webs of move-
ment and activity in and around these areas.
An excellent example of emancipatory map-
ping in their study is the maps that show
places and pathways mentioned in the oral
histories of Aboriginal people (Fig. 5).
Importantly though, alternative carto-
graphic performances in archaeology do not
need to have an explicitly participatory focus
to have an emancipating effect (Crampton
2009, pp. 842–845, Wood 2010a, Part II; see
also Parker 2006). An excellent case of such a
political cartographic performance in an
archaeological context is discussed by
Wickstead (2009). Using an airborne laser
scanner, artist Janet Hodgson maps the bodies
of four male archaeologists who have the
authority to make important decisions at the
site of Stonehenge and creates a monster using
their body parts. She casts the monster, named
Uber Archaeologist, in a film that she bases on
the plot of the Curse of Frankenstein.
Hodgson’s performance successfully pioneers
political mapping performances in archaeology
that manage to challenge the established and
imposed power structures in the discipline.
 14 Piraye Hacıgüzeller
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017

Fig. 3. All raw GPS data combined from Map Orkney Month collected by project participants during
March 2015. The project resisted the urge to present the map data in anything but this raw form, letting the
individual mappings (as line, text and image, etc.) speak for themselves (credit: Dan Lee and project
participants, Map Orkney Month).
 Archaeological (Digital) Maps as Performances 15
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017

Fig. 4. Sketch map from memory of a day’s GPS mapping in Stromness, Orkney by Diana Leslie (March
23, 2015). Multiple trips were made by foot and car between the travel centre/laundrette, home and co-op,
between drawing pencil sketches at the harbour and Brinkie’s Brae (credit: Diana Leslie, Map Orkney
Month).

In another archaeological example of Gummingurru. Practices of people who ani-

emancipatory mapping, Thomas and Ross
(2013) aim to map the Gummingurru stone
arrangement site on the Darling Downs, in
southeast Queensland, Australia. They
expand the possibilities provided by tradi-
tional two-dimensional mapping tools by
using Prezi presentation software in this con-
text. Originally a sacred male initiation site in
Aboriginal Australia, Gummingurru is con-
sidered by Thomas and Ross (2013, p. 225)
to be a rich memoryscape made up of physi-
cal remains of aboriginal ‘men’s and
women’s ceremonial places, campsites, art
sites, scarred trees and at least one ochre
quarry’ and related memories. They highlight
how these memories have informed the edu-
cational, cultural sharing and ‘resurrection’
(i.e. rock lifting and rearranging) activities
in the recent history and present day of
mated Gummingurru in the past and today
are being remembered in terms of continu-
ously changing stories and histories of the
site. This makes it especially worthwhile to
map the site through a presentation medium
like Prezi, according to Thomas and Ross
(2013), that affords challenging a fixed spa-
tial reality about Gummingurru, and telling
complex and fluid stories by combining avail-
able multimedia content with maps (cf. URL:
goo.gl/zfsc5u).
MAPS AS PERFORMANCES IN THE
DIGITAL AGE
Understanding archaeological maps as per-
formance not only is promising for moving
beyond hegemonic representational thinking
habits in the discipline but also comes at an
 16 Piraye Hacıgüzeller
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017

Fig. 5. Aerial photograph with overlay showing Robert Paulson’s remembered landscape. Robert Paulson
grew up in the 1950s at Tuncurry. The map shows the location of his childhood home and a regular route to
cross the Wallis Lake to visit his mother’s family on the Aboriginal Reserve in Forster (reprinted from
Byrne and Nugent 2004, fig. 110; courtesy of Denis Byrne).

appropriate time. In today’s digital age, new
soft- and hardware continuously enter into
cartographic practices and render digital car-
tography a distinct experience (Dodge et al.
2011). And, arguably, there are three main
characteristics about this experience that
make a re-conceptualisation of maps as per-
formance so well timed.
A first characteristic is that people using
digital maps are interacting with them in the
sense that they ‘are not just reading maps,
but are also to a far greater extent [than in
the case of paper-based maps] … influencing
the shape and look of the map itself’
(Lammes et al. 2015, p. 200). These ubiqui-
tous practices of digital cartographic interac-
tion involve actions (switching layers on or
off, changing symbology, or scaling maps up
or down) carried out in often fluid, open-
ended, pre-cognitive, spontaneous, diverse,
imaginative, frivolous and creative ways
which could be considered playful (Perkins
2009a, Lammes et al. 2015). As such, creat-
ing ‘short-lived maps’ that continuously
change into other maps seems to have
become a routine and even fun part of
 Archaeological (Digital) Maps as Performances
contemporary mapping culture in the digital
age (Silver and Balmori 2003, Perkins 2013,
p. 304; see also November et al. 2010). This
makes it easy to consider digital maps as
fleeting phenomena enacted through contex-
tually situated practices, a consideration
embraced by the performative turn in carto-
graphy, as discussed.
The second characteristic is the ubiquity
and accessibility of maps today. This is
mostly due to the advent of mobile devices,
cartographic software and the internet (see
Peterson 2008). As Perkins (2009a, p. 168)
states, in the digital internet age ‘new kinds
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017
of maps are being made; more people are
making maps; more things are being
mapped; and mapping is taking place in
more contexts than ever before.’ Arguably,
following Baudrillard’s philosophy (Smith
2003, p. 69), the more maps surround us in
everyday life, the easier we might find it to
accept how ‘the map’ and what we regard as
‘the real’ become one. That is to say, it may
have become particularly difficult now, in the
digital age, to pluck out so many maps that
are part of the everyday experiences of places
and still manage to convincingly account for
those experiences as reality. The continuously
updating global positioning system screens in
cars, for instance, are difficult to regard now
as merely a series of representations of the
itineraries to be followed during driving.
Much more clearly than in the case of paper
maps, these digital maps comprise those very
itineraries as they continuously remap rele-
vant information and instantaneously effect
drivers’ choices on the tracks to take. The
ubiquity and accessibility of maps in the age
of digital cartography, then, may finally be
making the representational illusion clear:
maps may be becoming hard to regard as
detached copies of reality rather than being
elemental parts of it.
The third and final characteristic of digi-
tal cartography that make theorising maps
as performances timely concerns the easy
production and manipulation of images in
general with digital media, which appears
17
to have catalysed an already ongoing crisis
of representation in academia, politics, lit-
erature, visual arts and mass media (see
Prendergast 2000, Castree and MacMillan
2004, Webb 2009). What is at issue here is
that in the digital age, images are now so
easy to manipulate at will that it has
become harder to uphold them as represen-
tations that mirror reality. That is, the
increasing involvement and capabilities of
digital tools for image processing has
increased awareness of the possibilities and
dangers of producing aesthetically attractive
but (scientifically) misleading images (Frow
et al. 2014, p. 249, Carusi et al. 2015, p. 3).
This growing scepticism about the represen-
tational qualities of digital images is espe-
cially traumatic in the case of informational
images such as Western maps that, as a
historical phenomenon as discussed, invite
people to trust them and often succeed in
doing so (Kemp et al. 2014, p. 345). The
trust issue is exacerbated further by what
we can call the ‘democratisation of image
processing’ (see Frow et al. 2014) or, parti-
cularly in the case of maps, the ‘democrati-
sation of cartography’ (Morrison 1997).
The latter phenomenon is caused by the
‘widening access to mapping and breaking
the rigid control of authorship by an anon-
ymised professional elite’ (Dodge et al.
2011, p. 119). It is, therefore, arguably the
right time, now that our trust in them is so
fundamentally shaken, to start considering
maps as performances taking place in the
world rather than its perfect copy.
CONCLUSIONS
Archaeology and, more specifically, archae-
ological cartography has a lot to gain from a
theoretical reconsideration of maps and map-
ping practices. Building on the burgeoning
critical cartography literature, a new range
of rewarding discussions about archaeologi-
cal maps ought to be initiated. The discus-
sions can centre on various topics such as
participation, agency, politics, affects,
 18 Piraye Hacıgüzeller
process and performance. In this article, the
focus was on performance.
It is through culturally and contextually
situated habits that we trust in the informa-
tion provided by maps. Because of the same
habits, we understand maps as immutable
representations. It will certainly take time
and effort to alter and create alternatives
to these habits as well as to learn to treat
maps as fleeting performances. My hope is
that this paper showed how both the time
and effort will be well worth it in the case
of archaeology. The call for the treatment
of archaeological maps as performances
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017
made above is more than just another the-
oretically sophisticated argument.
Considering maps as performances presents
a much needed shift in the discipline that
will mainly help free archaeologists from
map-related epistemological anxieties and
let them experiment while collecting carto-
graphic information and creating maps.
Treating maps as performances in archaeol-
ogy opens up a space for evaluating map-
ping processes for their political and ethical
consequences rather than merely pursuing
geometric accuracy. It enables new engage-
ments with archaeological places, and
finally, it promises new means for mapping
these places in pluralistic and emancipatory
ways.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by the
M4HUMAN Programme of the Gerda
Henkel Foundation during a postdoctoral fel-
lowship at the University of Oxford, Sagalassos
Archaeological Research Project at the KU
Leuven and the Faculty of Arts and
Philosophy at the University of Ghent. A pre-
liminary version of the ideas presented here was
featured in the ‘Rethinking the Archaeological
Map’ session at the annual Theoretical
Archaeology Group (TAG) Conference at
Bradford (UK) in December 2015. I would like
to thank attendants of the session, and Frank
Carpentier, Laura Wenk Floyd, Mark Gillings,
Gary Lock and Jeroen Poblome for their sup-
port and feedback. Denis Byrne and Daniel Lee
kindly allowed use of images from their projects.
I am also grateful for the constructive comments
of the two anonymous reviewers which helped
improve the paper. Any mistakes are my respon-
sibility alone.
FUNDING
This work was supported by the Gerda Henkel
Foundation [M4HUMAN Programme].
ORCID
Piraye Hacıgüzeller http://orcid.org/0000-0002-
8227-2901
REFERENCES
Alberti, B., Jones, A.M., and Pollard, J., eds.,
2013. Archaeology after interpretation: returning
materials to archaeological theory. Walnut
Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Anderson, B., and Harrison, P., 2010. The pro-
mise of non-representational theories. In: B.
Anderson and P. Harrison, eds. Taking place:
non-representational theories and geography.
Farnham: Ashgate, 1–34.
Atalay, S., 2010. ‘We don’t talk about
Ҫatalhöyük, we live it’: sustainable archaeologi-
cal practice through community-based partici-
patory research. World Archaeology, 42 (3),
418–429. doi:10.1080/00438243.2010.497394
Atalay, S., 2012. Community-based archaeology:
research with, by, and for indigenous and local
communities. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Atalay, S., 2008. Multivocality and indigenous
archaeologies. In: J. Habu, C. Fawcett, and J.
M. Matsunaga, eds. Evaluating multiple narra-
tives: beyond nationalist, colonialist, imperialist
archaeologies. New York: Springer, 29–44.
Bacon, M., 2012. Pragmatism: an introduction.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Baert, P., 2005. Philosophy of the social sciences:
towards pragmatism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bailey, D., 2014. Art and archaeology: collabora-
tions, conservations, criticisms. In: I.A. Russell
 Archaeological (Digital) Maps as Performances
and A. Cochrane, eds. Art and archaeology:
collaborations, conversations, criticisms. New
York: Springer, 231–250.
Bassett, T.J., 1994. Cartography and empire build-
ing in nineteenth-century West Africa.
Geographical Review, 84 (3), 316–335.
doi:10.2307/215456
Baudrillard, J., 1994. Simulacra and simulation.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
Bender, B., et al., 2006. Place and landscape. In:
C. Tilley, eds. Handbook of material culture.
London: Sage Publications, 303–314.
Bender, B., 1999. Subverting the Western gaze:
mapping alternative worlds. In: P.J. Ucko and
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017
R. Layton, eds. The archaeology and anthropol-
ogy of landscape: shaping your landscape.
London: Routledge, 31–45.
Bial, H., ed., 2004. The performance studies reader.
London: Routledge.
Biggs, M., 1999. Putting the state on the map: carto-
graphy, territory, and European state formation.
Comparative Studies in Society and History, 41
(2), 374–405. doi:10.1017/S0010417599002121
Bloch, L.J., 2014. The unthinkable and the
unseen: community archaeology and decoloniz-
ing social imagination at Okeeheepkee, or the
Lake Jackson site. Archaeologies: Journal of the
World Archaelogical Congress, 10 (1), 70–106.
doi:10.1007/s11759-014-9251-x
Brown, B., and Laurier, E., 2005. Maps and jour-
neys: an ethno-methodological investigation.
Cartographica: the International Journal for
Geographic Information and Geovisualization,
40, 17–33. doi:10.3138/6QPX-0V10-24R0-0621
Bruchac, M.M., 2014. Decolonization in archae-
ological theory. In: C. Smith, ed. Encyclopaedia
of global archaeology. New York: Springer,
2069–2077.
Buchli, V., and Lucas, G., 2001. The absent pre-
sent: archaeologies of the contemporary past.
In: V. Buchli and G. Lucas, eds. Archaeologies
of the contemporary past. London: Routledge,
3–18.
Butler, J., 1988. Performative acts and gender
constitution: an essay in phenomenology and
feminist theory. Theatre Journal, 40 (4), 519–
531. doi:10.2307/3207893
Butler, J., 1990. Gender trouble. London:
Routledge.
Butler, J., 1993. Bodies that matter: on the discur-
sive limits of ‘sex’. London: Routledge.
19
Byrne, D., and Nugent, M., 2004. Mapping
attachment: a spatial approach to Aboriginal
post-contact heritage. Hurstville, NSW:
Department of Environment and Conservation
(NSW).
Cadman, L., 2009. Non-representational theory/
non-representational geographies. In: R.
Kitchin and N. Thrift, eds. International ency-
clopaedia of human geography. Oxford: Elsevier,
Vol. 7, 456–463.
Caquard, S., 2015. Cartography III: a post-repre-
sentational perspective on cognitive cartogra-
phy. Progress in Human Geography, 39 (2),
225–235. doi:10.1177/0309132514527039
Carlson, M., 2004. Performance: a critical intro-
duction. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Carroll, L., [1893] 2015. Sylvie and Bruno con-
cluded. Leicestershire: Matador.
Carusi, A., et al., 2015. Introduction. In: A.
Carusi, et al., eds. Visualization in the age of
computerization. London: Routledge, 1–15.
Castree, N., and MacMillan, T., 2004. Old news:
representation and academic novelty.
Environment and Planning A, 36 (3), 469–480.
doi:10.1068/a3656
Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C., 2012. Archaeology
and indigenous collaboration. In: I. Hodder,
ed. Archaeological theory today. Cambridge:
Polity Press, 267–291.
Coopmans, C., et al., eds., 2014. Representation in
scientific practice revisited. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Corner, J., 1999. The agency of mapping: specula-
tion, critique and invention. In: D. Cosgrove, ed.
Mappings. London: Reaktion Books, 213–252.
Cosgrove, D., ed., 1999. Mappings. London:
Reaktion Books.
Cosgrove, D., 2001. Appollo’s eye: a cartographic
genealogy of the earth in the western imagina-
tion. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University
Press.
Cottingham, J., 1993. A Descartes dictionary.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Crampton, J.W., 2003. The political mapping of
cyberspace. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Crampton, J.W., 2009. Cartography: performa-
tive, participatory, political. Progress in
Human Geography, 33 (6), 840–848.
doi:10.1177/0309132508105000
Crampton, J.W., and Krygier, J., 2006. An intro-
duction to critical cartography. ACME: an
 20 Piraye Hacıgüzeller
International E-Journal for Critical Geographies,
4 (1), 11–33.
Curry, M.R., 1998. Digital place: living with geo-
graphic information technologies. London:
Routledge.
Daston, L., and Galison, P., 2007. Objectivity.
New York: Zone Books.
De Certeau, M., 1984. The practice of everyday
life. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Del Casino, V.J., and Hanna, S.P., 2000.
Representations and identities in tourism map
spaces. Progress in Human Geography, 24 (1),
23–46. doi:10.1191/030913200673388638
Del Casino, V.J., and Hanna, S.P., 2006. Beyond
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017
the ‘binaries’: a methodological intervention for
interrogating maps as representational prac-
tices. ACME: an International E-Journal for
Critical Geographies, 4, 34–56.
Della Dora, V., 2009. Performative atlases: mem-
ory, materiality, and (co-)authorship.
Cartographica: the International Journal for
Geographic Information and Geovisualization,
44 (4), 240–255. doi:10.3138/carto.44.4.240
Deshayes, J., and Dessenne, A., 1959. Fouilles
exécutées à Mallia. Paris: Paul Geuthner.
Dodge, M., and Kitchin, R., 2013. Crowdsourced
cartography: mapping experience and knowl-
edge. Environment and Planning A, 45, 19–36.
doi:10.1068/a44484
Dodge, M., Kitchin, R., and Perkins, C., 2011.
Introductory essay: technologies of mapping.
In: M. Dodge, R. Kitchin, and C. Perkins, eds.
The map reader: theories of mapping practice
and cartographic representation. West Sussex:
Wiley - Blackwell, 116–121.
Dreyfus, H., 2001. How Heidegger defends the
possibility of a correspondence theory of truth
with respect to the entities of natural science. In:
T.R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, and E. Von
Savigny, eds. The practice turn in contemporary
theory. London: Routledge, 159–171.
Edgeworth, M., 2016. Grounded objects : archae-
ology and speculative realism. Archaeological
Dialogues, 23 (1), 93–113. doi:10.1017/
S138020381600012X
Edmonds, M., 1999. Ancestral geographies of the
Neolithic: landscapes, monuments and memory.
London: Routledge.
Edmonds, M., 2004. The Langdales: landscape and
prehistory in a Lakeland Valley. Stroud:
Tempus.
Frow, E.K., et al., 2014. In images we trust?
Representation and objectivity in the digital
age. In: C. Coopmans, eds. Representation in
scientific practice revisited. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 249–267.
Gartner, G., 2009. Web mapping 2.0. In: M.
Dodge, R. Kitchin, and C. Perkins, eds.
Rethinking maps. London: Routledge, 68–82.
Gerlach, J., 2014. Lines, contours and legends :
coordinates for vernacular mapping. Progress in
Human Geography, 38 (1), 22–39. doi:10.1177/
0309132513490594
Goffman, E., 1959. The presentation of self in
everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
Goodwin, C., 1994. Professional vision. American
Anthropologist, 96 (3), 606–633. doi:10.1525/
aa.1994.96.issue-3
Gosden, C., and Malafouris, L., 2016. Process
archaeology (P-Arch). World Archaeology, 47
(5), 701–717. doi:10.1080/00438243.2015.1078741
Grasseni, C., 2004. Skilled landscapes : mapping
practices of locality. Environment and Planning D:
Society and Space, 22, 699–717. doi:10.1068/d398
Graves-Brown, P., 2011. Touching from a distance:
alienation, abjection, estrangement and archae-
ology. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 44 (2),
131–144. doi:10.1080/00293652.2011.629808
Gregson, N., and Rose, G., 2000. Taking Butler
elsewhere: performativities, spatialities and sub-
jectivities. Environment and Planning D: Society
and Space, 18 (4), 433–452. doi:10.1068/d232
Haraway, D., 1991. Simians, cyborgs and women:
the reinvention of nature. London: Free
Association Press.
Harley, J.B., 1989. Deconstructing the map.
Cartographica: the International Journal for
Geographic Information and Geovisualization,
26 (2), 1–20. doi:10.3138/E635-7827-1757-9T53
Harris, L., and Hazen, H., 2009. Rethinking maps
from a more-than-human perspective: nature–
society, mapping and conservation territories.
In: M. Dodge, R. Kitchin, and C. Perkins, eds.
Rethinking maps. London: Routledge, 50–67.
Harvey, D., 2001. Spaces of capital: towards a
critical geography. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Hodder, I., 2012. Entangled: an archaeology of the
relationships between people and things. Oxford:
Wiley - Blackwell.
Ingold, T., 2015. Foreword. In: P. Vannini, ed.
Non-representational methodologies: re-envision-
ing research. London: Routledge, vii–x.
 Archaeological (Digital) Maps as Performances
Inomata, T., and Coben, L.S., eds., 2006.
Archaeology of performance: theaters of power,
community, and politics. Lanham: Altamira Press.
James, W., 1975[1907]. Pragmatism. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Kemp, M., et al., 2014. A question of trust: old
issues and new technologies. In: C. Coopmans,
eds. Representation in scientific practice revis-
ited. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 343–346.
Kitchin, R., 2010. Post-representational cartogra-
phy. Lo Squaderno, 15, 7–12.
Kitchin, R., 2014. From mathematical to post-
representational understandings of cartography:
forty years of mapping theory and praxis in
Progress in Human Geography. Progress in
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017
Human Geography, e-special, 1–7.
Kitchin, R., and Dodge, M., 2007. Rethinking
maps. Progress in Human Geography, 31 (3),
331–344. doi:10.1177/0309132507077082
Kitchin, R., Dodge, M., and Perkins, C., 2011.
Introductory essay: conceptualising mapping.
In: M. Dodge, R. Kitchin, and C. Perkins, eds.
The map reader: theories of mapping practice
and cartographic representation. West Sussex:
Wiley - Blackwell, 2–7.
Kitchin, R., Gleeson, J., and Dodge, M., 2013.
Unfolding mapping practices: a new epistemol-
ogy for cartography. Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers, 38 (3), 480–
496. doi:10.1111/tran.2013.38.issue-3
Kitchin, R., Perkins, C., and Dodge, M., 2009.
Thinking about maps. In: M. Dodge, R.
Kitchin, and C. Perkins, eds. Rethinking maps.
London: Routledge, 1–25.
Knappett, C., 2004. The affordances of things: a
post-Gibsonian perspective on the relationality
of mind and matter. In: E. DeMarrais, C.
Gosden, and C. Renfrew, eds. Rethinking mate-
riality: the engagement of mind with the material
world. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research, 43–51.
Knorr-Cetina, K., 1999. Epistemic cultures: how
the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Lammes, S., et al., 2015. Digital cartographies as
playful practices. In: V. Frissen, eds. Playful iden-
tities: the ludification of playful media cultures.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 199–
210.
Latour, B., 1986. Visualization and cognition:
thinking with eyes and hands. Knowledge and
21
Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture past
and Present, 6, 1–40.
Latour, B., 1999. Pandora’s hope: essays on the
reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Lee, D., 2016. Map Orkney Month. Imagining
archaeological mappings. Living Maps Review, 1
(1), 1–25.
Lorimer, H., 2005. Cultural geography : the busy-
ness of being ‘more-than-representational.’.
Progress in Human Geography, 29 (1), 83–94.
doi:10.1191/0309132505ph531pr
Malafouris, L., 2008. At the potter’s wheel: an
argument for material agency. In: C. Knappett
and L. Malafouris, eds. Material agency:
towards a non-anthropocentric approach. New
York: Springer, 19–36.
Mol, A., 2002. The body multiple: ontology in
medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Mollett, S., 2013. Mapping deception : the pol-
itics of mapping Miskito and Garifuna space
in Honduras. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 103 (5), 1227–1241.
doi:10.1080/00045608.2013.770366
Morrison, J.L., 1997. Topographic mapping in the
twenty-first century. In: D. Rhind, ed.
Framework for the world. Cambridge:
Geoinformation International, 14–28.
Murray, T., 2011. Archaeologists and indigenous
people: a maturing relationship? Annual Review
of Anthropology, 40, 363–378. doi:10.1146/
annurev-anthro-081309-145729
Normore, C.G., 2008. Descartes and the metaphy-
sics of extension. In: J. Broughton and J.
Carriero, eds. A companion to Descartes.
Malden: Blackwell, 271–287.
November, V., Camacho-Hübner, E., and Latour,
B., 2010. Entering a risky territory: space in the
age of digital navigation. Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space, 28 (4), 581–
599. doi:10.1068/d10409
Olsen, B., et al. 2012. Archaeology: the discipline of
things. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Olsson, G., 2007. Abysmal: a critique of cartogra-
phical reason. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Parker, B., 2006. Constructing community
through maps? Power and praxis in community
mapping. Professional Geographer, 58 (4), 470–
484. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9272.2006.00583.x
 22 Piraye Hacıgüzeller
Perkins, C., 2007. Community mapping. The
Cartographic Journal, 44 (2), 127–137.
doi:10.1179/000870407X213440
Perkins, C., 2013. Plotting practices and politics: (Im)
mutable narratives in OpenStreetMap.
Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, 39 (2), 304–317. doi:10.1111/
tran.12022
Perkins, C., 2009a. Playing with maps. In: M.
Dodge, R. Kitchin, and C. Perkins, eds.
Rethinking maps. London: Routledge, 167–188.
Perkins, C., 2009b. Performative and embodied
mapping. In: R. Kitchin and N. Thrift, eds.
International encyclopaedia of human geography.
Oxford: Elsevier, Vol. 8, 126–132.
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017
Perry, E.M., and Joyce, R.A., 2001.
Interdisciplinary applications: providing a past
for ‘bodies that matter’: judith Butler’s impact
on the archaeology of gender. International
Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, 6 (1),
63–76. doi:10.1023/A:1010142023744
Peterson, M.P., 2008. Trends in internet and ubi-
quitous cartography. Cartographic Perspectives,
61, 36–49. doi:10.14714/CP61.213
Pickering, A., 1995. The mangle of practice: time,
agency and science. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Pickles, J., 2004. A history of spaces: cartographic
reason, mapping and the geo-coded world.
London: Routledge.
Pinder, D., 1996. Subverting cartography: the
situationists and maps of the city. Environment
and Planning A, 28, 405–427. doi:10.1068/
a280405
Pinder, D., 2005. Arts of urban exploration.
Cultural Geographies, 12 (4), 383–411.
doi:10.1191/1474474005eu347oa
Prendergast, C., 2000. The triangle of representa-
tion. New York: Columbia University Press.
Ramaswamy, S., 2001. Maps and mother god-
desses in modern India. Imago Mundi, 53 (1),
97–114.
Reckwitz, A., 2002. Toward a theory of social
practices: a development in culturalist theoriz-
ing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5 (2),
243–263. doi:10.1177/13684310222225432
Rorty, R., 1979. Philosophy and the mirror of
nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rossetto, T., 2015. Semantic ruminations on ‘post-
representational cartography’. International
Journal of Cartography, 1 (2), 151–167.
doi:10.1080/23729333.2016.1145041
Schatzki, T.R., Cetina, K.K., and von Savigny,
E., eds., 2001. The practice turn in contemporary
theory. London: Routledge.
Schechner, R., 2006. Performance studies: an
introduction. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Shanks, M., and Webmoor, T., 2013. A political
economy of visual media in archaeology. In: S.
Bonde and S. Houston, eds. Re-presenting the
past: archaeology through text and image.
Oxford: Oxbow, 85–108.
Silver, M., and Balmori, D., eds., 2003. Mapping
in the age of digital media: the Yale Symposium.
West Sussex: Wiley-Academy.
Sletto, B., 2009b. ‘Indigenous people don’t have
boundaries’: reborderings, fire management,
and productions of authenticities in indigenous
landscapes. Cultural Geographies, 16, 253–277.
doi:10.1177/1474474008101519
Sletto, B.I., 2009a. We drew what we imagined.
Current Anthropology, 50 (4), 443–476.
doi:10.1086/593704
Sletto, B.I., 2014. Cartographies of remembrance and
becoming in the Sierra de Perija, Venezuela.
Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, 39 (3), 360–372. doi:10.1111/
tran.12038
Smith, M.L., 2005. Networks, territories, and the
cartography of ancient states. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 95 (4),
832–849. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2005.00489.x
Smith, R.G., 2003. Baudrillard’s nonrepresenta-
tional theory: burn the signs and journey with-
out maps. Environment and Planning D: Society
and Space, 21 (1), 67–84. doi:10.1068/d280t
Sørensen, T.F., 2016. In praise of vagueness :
uncertainty, ambiguity and archaeological
methodology. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory, 23, 741–763. doi:10.1007/
s10816-015-9257-8
States, B.O., 1996. Performance as metaphor.
Theatre Journal, 48 (1), 1–26. doi:10.1353/
tj.1996.0021
Tarlow, S., 2000. Emotion in Archaeology.
Current Anthropology, 41 (5), 713–746.
doi:10.1086/317404
Thomas, E.J., and Ross, A., 2013. Mapping an
archaeology of the present: counter-mapping at
the Gummingurru stone arrangement site,
 Archaeological (Digital) Maps as Performances
southeast Queensland, Australia. Journal of
Social Archaeology, 13 (2), 220–241.
doi:10.1177/1469605312470986
Thomas, J., 2004. Archaeology and modernity.
London: Routledge.
Thrift, N., 1996. Spatial formations. London: Sage
Publications.
Thrift, N., 2008. Non-representational theory:
space, politics, affect. London: Routledge.
Thrift, N., and Dewsbury, J.-D., 2000. Dead geo-
graphies—and how to make them live.
Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space, 18 (4), 411–432. doi:10.1068/d1804ed
Thrift, N., 2004. Summoning life. In: P. Cloke, P.
Crang, and M. Goodwin, eds. Envisioning human
Downloaded by [Piraye Haciguzeller] at 16:33 31 October 2017
geographies. London: Arnold,
81–103.
Tomášková, S., 2007. Mapping a future: archae-
ology, feminism, and scientific practice. Journal
of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14 (3),
264–284. doi:10.1007/s10816-007-9038-0
Turnbull, D., 1996. Cartography and science in
early modern Europe: mapping the construction
of knowledge spaces. Imago Mundi, 48, 5–24.
Vannini, P., 2015. Non-representational research
methodologies: an introduction. In: P. Vannini,
ed. Non-representational methodologies: re-envi-
sioning research. London: Routledge, 1–18.
Wainwright, J., and Bryan, J., 2009. Cartography,
territory, property: postcolonial reflections on
indigenous counter-mapping in Nicaragua and
Belize. Cultural Geographies, 16, 153–178.
doi:10.1177/1474474008101515
Watts, C., ed., 2013. Relational archaeologies:
humans, animals, things. London: Routledge.
Webb, J., 2009. Understanding representation. Los
Angeles: Sage.
Webmoor, T., 2005. Mediational techniques and
conceptual frameworks in archaeology: a model
in ‘mapwork’ at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Journal
of Social Archaeology, 5 (1), 52–84. doi:10.1177/
1469605305050143
Wheatley, D., 2014. Connecting landscapes with
built environments : visibility analysis, scale and
the senses. In: E. Paliou, U. Lieberwirth, and S.
Polla, eds. Spatial analysis and social spaces:
interdisciplinary approaches to the interpretation
23
of historic and prehistoric built environments.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 115–134.
Wickstead, H., 2009. The Uber archaeologist: art,
GIS and the male gaze revisited. Journal of
Social Archaeology, 9 (2), 249–271.
doi:10.1177/1469605309104138
Winichakul, T., 1994. Siam mapped: a history of
the geo-body of a nation. Honolulu: University
of Hawai’i Press.
Witmore, C., 2014. Archaeology and the new mate-
rialisms. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology, 1
(2), 203–246. doi:10.1558/jca.v1i2.2033
Witmore, C.L., 2004. On multiple fields. Between
the material world and media: two cases from
the Peloponnesus, Greece. Archaeological
Dialogues, 11 (2), 133–164. doi:10.1017/
S1380203805001479
Witmore, C.L., 2006. Vision, media, noise and the
percolation of time: symmetrical approaches to
the mediation of the material world. Journal of
Material Culture, 11, 267–292. doi:10.1177/
1359183506068806
Witmore, C.L., 2015. Archaeology and the second
empiricism. In: C. Hillerdal and J. Siapkas, eds.
Debating archaeological empiricism: the ambiguity
of material evidence. London: Routledge, 37–67.
Witmore, C.L., 2013. The world on a flat surface:
maps from the archaeology of Greece and
beyond. In: S. Bonde and S. Houston, eds. Re-
presenting the past: archaeology through text and
image. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 207–245.
Wood, D., 1992. The power of maps. New York:
Guilford Press.
Wood, D., 2010a. Rethinking the power of maps.
New York: The Guilford Press.
Wood, D., 2010b. Lynch Debord: about two psycho-
geographies. Cartographica: the International
Journal for Geographic Information and
Geovisualization, 45 (3), 185–199. doi:10.3138/
carto.45.3.185
Wood, D., and Fels, J., 2008. The natures of maps:
cartographic constructions of the natural world.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wood, D., and Krygier, J., 2009. Critical carto-
graphy. In: R. Kitchin and N. Thrift, eds. The
international encyclopaedia of human geography.
Oxford: Elsevier, Vol. 2, 340–344.