Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T12:17:58.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Editorial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Caroline Malone  and
Simon Stoddart
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial
Information
Antiquity , Volume 74 , Issue 285 , September 2000 , pp. 457 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2000

References

Barson, T., Batchelor, D. Berkeley, K. Freedman, C. Gale, M. Horlock, M. Montagu, J. Moszynska, A. Wilson, A. Wilson, S. & Withers, R.. 2000. 100 Artists A-Z, in Blazwick, I. & Wilson, S. (ed.), Tate Modern the handbook: 112–233. London: Tate Gallery Publishing.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. 1993. Altering the earth. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.Google Scholar
Brown, N. & Glazebrook, J.. 2000. Research and archaeology: A framework of the Eastern Counties 2: Research agenda and strategy. East Anglian Archaeology.Google Scholar
Coles, A. 1999. The epic archaeological digs of Mark Dion, in Coles, & Dion, (ed.): 25–33.Google Scholar
Coles, A. & Dion, M. (ed.). 1999. Mark Dion archaeology. London: Black Dog Publishing.Google Scholar
Department of the Environment. 1990. PPGI6: Archaeology and planning. Planning Policy Guidance Circular.Google Scholar
Department of the Environment. 1994. PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment. Planning Policy Guidance Circular.Google Scholar
English Heritage. 1991. Exploring our past: Strategies for the archaeology of England. London: English Heritage. Occasional paper 8.Google Scholar
Fontana, E. 1999. Loot, in Coles, & Dion, (ed.): 46–57.Google Scholar
James, S.T. & Millet, M. (ed.). In press. Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda. York: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Olivier, A. 1996 Frameworks for our past. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Prehistoric Society. 1988. Saving our prehistoric heritage. A report by the Prehistoric Society. London: Prehistoric Society.Google Scholar
Prehistoric Society. 1999. Research Frameworks for the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Britain and Ireland. London: Prehistoric Society.Google Scholar
Renfrew, A.C. 1999. It may be art, but is it archaeology ? Science as art and art as science, in Coles, & Dion, (ed.): 12–23.Google Scholar
Rosenblum, R. 2000. Art in 1900. Twilight or Dawn?, in Rosenblum et al. (ed.): 27–53.Google Scholar
Rosenblum, R., Stevens, M. & Dumas, A. (ed.). 2000. 1900 Art at the Crossroads. New York (NY): Abrams.Google Scholar
Sheldon, H. 1978. The 1972–4 excavations: their contribution to Southwark’s history, in Bird, J. Graham, A.H. Sheldon, H. & Towsend, P. (ed.), Southwark excavations 1972–4: 11–49. London/Guildford: London & Middlesex Archaeological Society/Surrey Archaeological Society.Google Scholar
Serota, N. 1996. Experience or interpretation. The dilemma museums of modern Art. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Stevens, M. 2000. The exposition universelle: ‘This vast competition of effort, realisation and victories’, in Rosenblum, et al. (ed.): 55–71.Google Scholar
Tilley, C., Hamilton, S. & Bender, B.. 2000. Art and the representation of the past, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 6 (1): 33–62.Google Scholar
Turner, D.J. 1987. Archaeology of Surrey, 1066–1540, in Bird, J. & Bird, D.G. (ed.), The Archaeology of Surrey to 1540: 223–61. Guildford: Surrey Archaeological Society.Google Scholar
Williams, J. & Brown, N.. 1999. An Archaeological Research Framework for the Greater Thames Estuary. Essex County Council.Google Scholar