Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T09:14:42.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The beginning of wisdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

M. Parker Pearson
M. Parker Pearson*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology & Prehistory, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is the best of times and it is the worst of times. On one hand, there are more resources and people involved in archaeology than ever before; there is considerable public and media interest in the subject; and there have been exciting developments in archaeologists’ uses of social theory. On the other, competition is intense for locally scarce funding; most field research is constrained by non-archaeological considerations; and fragmentation, insecurity and disenchantment are rife. The split between theory and practice has certainly widened since David Clarke’s day, whilst theory has become not so much Clarke’s unifier within the morass of empirical detail but its own basis for division and often bitter disagreement within the profession.

Type
Special section: David Clarke's ‘Archaeology: the loss of innocence’ (1973) 25 years after
Information
Antiquity , Volume 72 , Issue 277 , September 1998 , pp. 680 - 686
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andah, B. 1995. European encumbrances to the development of relevant theory in African archaeology, in Uck, P.J. (ed.), Theory in archaeology: a world perspective: 96–109. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bender, B. 1998. Stonehenge: making space. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Bettinger, R.L. 1991. Hunter-gatherers: archaeological and evolutionary theory. New York (NY): Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boast, R. 1995. Fine pots, pure pots, beaker pots, in Kinnes, & Vamdell, (ed.): 69–80.Google Scholar
Case, H. 1995. Beakers: loosening a stereotype, in Kinnes, & Vamdell, (ed.): 55–67.Google Scholar
Chadwick, A. 1998. Archaeology at the edge of chaos: further towards reflexive excavation methodologies, Assemblage: the Sheffield Graduate Journal of Archaeology 3 http://www.shef.ac.Uk/~assem/3/3chad.htm Google Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1968. Analytical archaeology. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1970. Beaker pottery of Great Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1972. A provisional model of an Iron Age society and its settlement system, in Clark, D.L. (ed.), Models in archaeology: 801–69. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1973. Archaeology: the loss of innocence, Antiquity 47: 6–18.Google Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1976. The Beaker network, in Lantin, J.N. & der Waals va, J. (ed.), Glockenbechersymposion, Oberried 1974: 459–76. Bussum/Haarlem: Fibula-Van Dishoeck.Google Scholar
Coles, J.M. & Minnitt, S. 1995. Industrious and fairly civilized: the Glastonbury lake village. Taunton: Somerset Levels Project & Somerset County Council Museums Service.Google Scholar
De Man, P. 1978. Foreword, in Jacobs, C. The dissimulating harmony. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Flannery, K.V. 1982. The golden Marshalltown: a parable for the archeology of the 1980s, American Anthropologist 84: 265–78.Google Scholar
Gellner, E. 1995. Interpretive anthropology, in Hodder, et al. (ed.): 48–50.Google Scholar
Geras, N. 1990. Discourses of extremity: radical ethics and post-Marxist extravagances. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Haskell, T. 1990. Objectivity is not neutrality: rhetoric vs. Practice in Peter Novick’s That noble dream, History and Theory 29: 129–57.Google Scholar
Hassan, F.A. 1997. Beyond the surface: comments on Hodder’s ‘reflexive excavation methodology’, Antiquity 71: 1020–25.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1986. Reading the past: current approaches to interpretation in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1997. ‘Always momentary, fluid and flexible’: towards a reflexive excavation methodology, Antiquity 71: 691–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. & Shanks, M. 1995. Processual, postprocessual and interpretive archaeologies, in Hodder, et al. (ed.): 3–29.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., Shanks, M. Alexandri, A. Buchli, V. Carman, J. Last, J. & Luca, G. (ed.). 1995. Interpreting archaeology: finding meaning in the past. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jenkins, K. 1995. On ‘What is history?’: from Carr and Elton to Rorty and White. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kinnes, I. & Varndel, G. (ed.). 1995. ‘Unbaked urns of rudely shape’: essays on British and Irish pottery for Ian Longworth. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Kinnes, I., Gibson, A. Ambers, J. Leese, M. & Boast, R. 1991. Radiocarbon dating and British beakers, Scottish Archaeological Review 8: 35–68.Google Scholar
Lyotard, F. 1979. La condition postmoderne: rapport sur savoir. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Moore, H. 1995. The problems of origins: poststructuralism and beyond, in Hodder, et al. (ed.): 51–3.Google Scholar
Moreland, J. In press a. The Middle Ages, theory and postmodernism, Acta Archaeologica 68.Google Scholar
Moreland, J. In press b. Through the looking glass of possibilities: understanding the Middle Ages, Veroffentlichungen des Instituts für Reanenkunde des Mittelalters und der Frühen Neuzeit.Google Scholar
Norris, C. 1990. What’s wrong with postmodernism: critical theory and the ends of philosophy. London: Harvester.Google Scholar
Norris, C. 1993. The truth about postmodernism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P. 1989. Time and narrative 3. (Trans. McLaughli, K. & Pellauer, D.) Chicago (IL): Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. 1982. Consequences of pragmatism (essays: 1972–1980). Brighton: Harvester.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. 1991. Objectivity, relativism, and truth: philosophical papers 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C. 1987a. Re-constructing archaeology: theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C. 1987b. Social theory and archaeology. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C. 1989. Archaeology into the 1990s. Norwegian Archaeoiogical Review 22: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, D.P. 1997. Review of Parke Pearson, M. & Richard, C. (ed.), Architecture and order, The Ley Hunter 129: 40.Google Scholar
Tilley, C. 1989. Excavation as theatre, Antiquity 63: 275–80.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. 1989. Hyperrelativism, responsibility and the social sciences, Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 26: 776–97.Google Scholar
Webb, S. 1987. Reburying Australian skeletons, Antiquity 61: 292–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zagorin, P. 1990. Historiography and postmodernism: reconsiderations, History and Theory 29: 263–74.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, L. 1989. Made radical by my own: an archaeologist learns to accept reburial, in Layto, R. (ed.), Conflict in the archaeology of living traditions: 60–67. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar