Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T09:37:26.598Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Footnotes to Plato? Palaeolithic archaeology and innocence lost

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Anthony Sinclair
Anthony Sinclair*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Liverpool, William Hartley Building, Brownlow Street, Liverpool L69 3BX, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Trawling through old, dust-covered folders I found out that I first read ‘Archaeology: the loss of innocence’ as a 2nd-year undergraduate for an essay on whether the New Archaeology was as theoretically sophisticated as it claimed to be. My notes of the time emphasize the beginning and end of the article; suggesting that Clarke’s purpose was just to argue that

1 there had been a sea-change in the nature of archaeology leading to the development of a critically self-conscious entity in the New Archaeology; and

2 to discuss what a general theory of archaeology might look like.

Type
Special section: David Clarke's ‘Archaeology: the loss of innocence’ (1973) 25 years after
Information
Antiquity , Volume 72 , Issue 277 , September 1998 , pp. 686 - 690
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

Bailey, G.N. 1984. Concepts of time in quaternary prehistory, Annual Reviews of Anthropology 12: 165–92.Google Scholar
Binkord, L.R. 1978. Nunamiat ethnoarchaeoiogy. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Binkord, L.R. 1981. Bones: ancient men and modern myths. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Binkord, L.R. 1983. Working at archaeology. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Conkey, M. 1985. Ritual communication, social elaboration and the use of variable trajectories of Palaeolithic material culture, in Brow, J. & Price, T.D. (ed.), Complex hunter-gatherers: 299–323. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gamble, C. 1998. Palaeolithic society and the release from proximity: a network approach to intimate relations, World Archaeology 29: 429–49.Google Scholar
Gowlett, J.A.J. & Crompton, R.H. 1994. Kariandusi: Acheulian morphology and the question of allometry, African Archaeological Review 12: 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaac, G. 1989. (Edited by Barbara Isaac.) The archaeology of hum in origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mithen, S. 1990. Thoughtful foragers: a study of prehistoric decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roebrooks, W. 1988. Excavations at Maastricht-Belvedere. Leiden: Springer-Verlag. Analectica Leidense 21.Google Scholar
Schlanger, N. 1994. Mindful technology: unleashing the chaîne opératoire for an archaeology of mind, in Renfre, C. & Zubro, E. (ed.), The ancient mind: elements of cognitive archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, N. 1994. The implications of time-averaging for reconstructing the land-use patterms of early tool-using hominids, in Olive, J.S. & Stewar, K.M. (ed.), Early nominici behavioural ecology: 89–106. New York (NY) Academic Press.Google Scholar
Torrence, R. 1989. Re-tooling: towards a behavioural theory of stone tool technology, in Torrence, R. (ed.), Time, energy and stone tools: 79–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar