Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:36:24.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clarke in Mediterranean archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Alessandro Guidi
Alessandro Guidi*
Affiliation:
Instituto di Storia antica, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Universitá di Verona, Vicolo dietro San Francesco 5, Verona 37129, Italy.aguidi@chiostro.univr.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When ANTIQUITY published the historical article by Clarke, I was a 20-year-old student, deeply engaged in field activities and substantially torn away from the ‘theoretical’ debate.

My archaeological loss of innocence happened only in the early 1980s, when I discovered (thanks to people like Maurizio Tosi and Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri) the enormous explanatory potential of processual theories.

It would be absurd to label the whole of Italian archaeology as ‘atheoretical’; as a matter of fact, a powerful theoretical machine, the Marxist theory, had operated from the late 1960s, thanks to the group of Dialoghi di Archeologia. The problem was in the idealistic roots of our (academic) culture, characterized by a programmatic divorce between humanistic and scientific studies and from a substantial lack of interest for the anthropological theories.

Type
Special section: David Clarke's ‘Archaeology: the loss of innocence’ (1973) 25 years after
Information
Antiquity , Volume 72 , Issue 277 , September 1998 , pp. 678 - 680
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

Arqueología Espacial 1. 1984–85. Coloquio sobre distribución y relaciones entre los asentamientos (vols. 1–6). Teruel: Cometa S.A.Google Scholar
Arqueología Espacial 2. 1986–87. Coloquio sobre el microespacio (vols. 7–11). Teruel: Cometa S.A.Google Scholar
Arqueología Espacial 4. 1993–96. Procesos postdeposicionales (vols. 15–17). Teruel: Cometa S.A.Google Scholar
Barich, B. 1977–82. II problema della teoria nell’archeologia preistorica e nelle scienze umane, Origini 11: 7–44.Google Scholar
Barich, B. 1981. Prospettive in archeologia preistorica dopo la crisi del paradigma tradizionale, Antropologia contemporanea 5: 127–32.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1972. An archaeological perspective. New York (NY): Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Carandini, A. 1997. La nascita di Roma. Dèi, lari, eroi e uomini all’alba di una civiltà. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Cardarelli, A. 1982. Gli studi sul territorio nell’archeologia britannica: alcuni recenti indirizzi di ricerca, in Economia e Organizzazione: 11–18.Google Scholar
Cazzella, A. 1971. Review of Beaker pottery of Great Britain and Ireland, Origini 5: 329–35.Google Scholar
Cazzella, A. 1972. Considerazioni su alcuni aspetti eneolitici dell’Italia meridionale e della Sicilia, Origini 6: 171–299.Google Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1984. Arqueología analítica. Barcelona: Bellaterra S.A.Google Scholar
Cuomo Di Caprio, N. 1986. Onde di propagazione della New Archaeology in Italia, Rivista di Archeologia 10: 59–71.Google Scholar
De Guio, A. 1988–89. Analisi funzionale del ‘paesaggi di potere’, Origini 14: 447–78.Google Scholar
De Guio, A. 1989. Costruzione di modelli e archeologia postprocessuale: un percorso crìtico, in Istituto Italiano di Preistorie e Protohistorie (ed.), Dottrina e metodologia della ricerca preistorica: 301–14. Ferrara: S.A.T.E.Google Scholar
De Guio, A. 1992. ‘Archeologia della complessità’ e calcolatori: un percorso di sopravvivenza fra teorie del caos, ‘attrattori strani’, frattali e frattaglie del postmoderno, in Bernard, M. (ed.), Archeologia del paesaggio: 305–89. Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio.Google Scholar
Dinçol, A.M. & Kantman, S. 1969. Analitik arkeologi. Istanbul.Google Scholar
Economia e organizzazione del territorio nelle società preistoriche. 1982. Congress proceedings, Dialoghi di Archeologia n.s. 4.Google Scholar
Guidi, A., 1987. The development of prehistoric archaeology in Italy, Acta Archaeologica 58: 237–47.Google Scholar
Guidi, A., 1996a. The Italian pluriverse: different approaches to prehistoric archaeology, The European Archaeologist 5 (August): 5–8.Google Scholar
Guidi, A., 1996b. Processual and post-processual trends in Italian archaeology, in Bietti, A. Cazzella, A. Johnson, I. & Voorrip, A. (ed.), Theoretical and methodological problems (Colloquium 1, 13th International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistorie Sciences): 29–36. Forlü: A.B.A.C.O.Google Scholar
Leonardi, G. (ed.). 1992. Processi formativi della stratificazione archeologica. Padua: Imprimitur.Google Scholar
Maetzke, G. 1981. Metodi e problemi dell’analisi delle fonti archeologiche, Archeologia medievale 8: 35–46.Google Scholar
Tabaczynsky, S. 1976. Cultura e culture nella problematica della ricerca archeologica, Archeologia medievale 3: 25–52.Google Scholar