Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:52:05.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neither archaeology nor theory: a critique of Johnson

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Leo S. Klejn
Leo S. Klejn*
Affiliation:
Retired Professor, St Petersburg University, Russia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Debate
Information
Antiquity , Volume 80 , Issue 308 , 1 June 2006 , pp. 435 - 441
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2006

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

Bernbeck, R. 1997. Theorien in der Archäologie. Tübingen & Basel: Francke.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. & Binford, S.R. 1968. Archaological theory and method, in Binford, L.R. & Binford, S.R. (ed.) New perspectives in archaeology: 1–3. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Boivin, N. 1997. Insidious or just boring? An examination of academic writing in archaeology. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 14 (2): 105–.Google Scholar
Burstöm, M. 1994. An ivory tower in archaeology? A conversation with Leo S. Klejn. Current Swedish Archaeology 2: 7–12.Google Scholar
Chadwick, A. 2003. Post-processualism, professionalization and archaeological methodologies. Towards reflective and radical practice. Archaeological dialogues 10 (1): 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, K.C. 1967. Rethinking archaeology. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.H. 1989. Conception of agency in archaeological interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8: 189–211.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.H. 1993. Housing culture. London: University College London Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.H. 1996. Archaeology of capitalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.H. 1999. Archaeological theory: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Klejn, L.S. 1993a. It’s difficult to be a god (Yoffee and Sherratt’s Archaeological theory: Who sets the agenda?). Current Anthropology 34(4): 508–11.Google Scholar
Klejn, L.S. 1993b. To separate a centaur: On the relationship of archaeology and history in Soviet tradition. Antiquity 67 (255): 339–48.Google Scholar
Klejn, L.S. 1994. Prehistory and archaeology, in Kuna, M. & Venclova, N. (ed.) Whither archaeology? Papers in honour of Evžen Neustupny: 36–42. Praha: Institute of archaeology.Google Scholar
Klejn, L.S. 1996. On archaeology theory: Who’s who in setting the agenda? Current Anthropology 37 (2): 346–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klejn, L.S. 2001. Metaarchaeology (Acta Archaeologica, Kobenhavn, vol. 72:1, supplementa vol. III). Blackwell/Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Klejn, L.S. 2004. Vvedenie v teoreticheskuyu arkheologiyu. Metaarkheologiya [Intruduction to theoretical archaeology. Metaarchaeology (russ.)] St. Petersburg: Belveder.Google Scholar
Murray, T. 1995. On Klejn‘s agenda for theoretical archaeology. Current Anthropology 36 (2): 290–2.Google Scholar
Trigger, B.C. 1989. Hyperrelativism, responsibility, and the social sciences. Canadian Review in Sociology andAnthropology 26 (5): 776–97.Google Scholar
Trigger, B.C. 1990. The 1990s: North American archaeology with a human face? Antiquity 64 (245): 778–87.Google Scholar
Trigger, B.C. 1991. Post-Processual developments in Anglo-American archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review 24 (2): 65–76.Google Scholar
Trigger, B.C. 1995. Archaeology and the integrated circus. Critique ofAnthropology 15 (4): 319–35.Google Scholar
Yoffee, N. & Sherratt, A. (ed.). 1993. Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar