Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T00:32:43.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changing perspectives on hunter-gatherers in Continental and in Anglo-American archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

David Van Reybrouck
David Van Reybrouck*
Affiliation:
Faculteit der Pre- en Protohistorie, PO Box 9515, 2300 CA Leiden, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

How different are the intellectual traditions of Continental and of Anglo-American archaeology, and how is each changing? Counting papers in the standard journals which address aspects of hunter-gatherer archaeology may show.

Type
Miscellaneous
Information
Antiquity , Volume 68 , Issue 261 , December 1994 , pp. 831 - 837
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1994

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

Courbin, P. 1981. Qu’est-ce que l’archéologie? Essai sur la nature de la recherche archéologique. Paris: Payot. (English: COURBIN, P. 1989. What is archaeology? An essay on the nature of archaeological research. Chicago (IL): Chicago University Press).Google Scholar
Cleuziou, S., Coudart, A. Demoule, J.-P. & Schnapp, A. 1991. The use of theory in French archaeology, in Hodder, (1991): 91–128.Google Scholar
Eggert, M.K.H. 1976. On the interrelationship of prehistoric archaeology and cultural anthropology, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 51: 56–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggert, M.K.H. 1978. Prähistorische Archäologie und Ethnologie. Studien zur amerikanischen New Archaeology, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 53: 6–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embree, L. 1989. Contacting the theoretical archaeologists, in A.L., Christenson Tracing archaeology’s past: the historiography of archaeology: 62–74. Carbondale (IL): Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Gallay, A. 1989. Logicism: a French view of archaeological theory founded in computational perspective, Antiquity 63: 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardin, J.-C. 1979. Une archeologie théorique. Paris: Hachette. (English: GARDIN, J.-C. 1980. Archaeological constructs: an aspect of theoretical archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.)Google Scholar
Härke, H. 1989. The Unkel Symposia: the emergence of a debate in West German archaeology, Current Anthropology 30: 406–10.Google Scholar
Härke, H. 1991. All quiet on the Western front? Paradigms, methods and approaches in West German archaeology, in Hodder, (1991): 187–222.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. (ed.) 1991. Archaeological theory in Europe: the last three decades. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Klejn, L.S. 1993. Is German archaeology atheoretical? Comments on Georg Kossack, Norwegian Archaeological Review 26: 49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivier, L. & Coudart, A. In press. French tradition and the central place of history in the human sciences. Preamble to the dialogue between Robinson Crusoe and his Man Friday, in Ucko, P. (ed.), The identity of Europe: an archaeological perspective.Google Scholar
Slofstra, J. 1994. Recent developments in Dutch archaeology: a scientific-historical outline, Archaeological Dialogues 1: 9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, U. 1991. Frontiers of discourse: the nature of theoretical discussion in German archaeology, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 10: 202–16.Google Scholar