Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-20T01:27:59.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TAG and ‘post-modernism’: a reply to John Bintliff

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Julian Thomas  and
Christopher Tilley
Julian Thomas
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, Saint David's University College, Lampeter, Dyfed SA48 7ED, UK
Christopher Tilley
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, Saint David's University College, Lampeter, Dyfed SA48 7ED, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two organizers of the TAG meeting at Lampeter, December 1991, take issue with Bintliff's view of their intellectual position, starting with the label ‘post-modern’.

Type
Notes
Information
Antiquity , Volume 66 , Issue 250 , March 1992 , pp. 106 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1992

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

References

Barnes, B. 1985. Thomas Kuhn, in Skinner, Q. (ed.), The return of grand theory in the human sciences: 83–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C., Bradley, R.J. & Green, M.. 1990. Landscape, monuments and society: the prehistory of Cranborne Chase. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baudrillard, J. 1990. America. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, R. 1975. A reaiist theory of science. Leeds: Leeds Books.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J.L. 1991. Post-modernism, rhetoric and scholasticism at TAG: the current state of British archaeological theory. Antiquity 65, 274–8.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1990. The poiitical ontology of Martin Heidegger. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Bradley, R.J. 1983. Archaeology, evolution and the public good: the intellectual development of General Pitt Rivers, Archaeological Journal 140: 1–9.Google Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1972. Models and paradigms in contemporary archaeology, in Clarke, D.L. (ed.), Models in archaeology: 1–60. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1973. Archaeology: the loss of innocence, Antiquity 47: 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1978. Analytical archaeology. 2nd edition, revised by Chapman, R.. London: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, J. 1987. Heidegger, l’enfer des philosophes, Le Nouvel Observateur 6–12 novembre.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. 1989. Of spirit: Heidegger and the question. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. & Rabinow, P.. 1982. Michel Foucault: beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. Brighton: Harvester.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1972. The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H.J. 1975. Truth and method. London: Sheet & Ward.Google Scholar
Gero, J. & Conkey, M. (ed.). 1991. Engendering archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gregory, D. 1978. Ideology, science and human geography. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1972. Knowledge and human interests. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. 1989. The condition of post-modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hawkes, C.F.C. 1947. Britons, Romans and Saxons round Salisbury and in Cranborne Chase, Archaeological Journal 104: 27–81.Google Scholar
Hodder, I.R. 1982. Theoretical archaeology: a reactionary view, in Hodder, I.R. (ed.), Symbolic and structural archaeology: 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Isaac, G.L.L. 1979. The philosophy of archaeology, in Clarke, D.L., Analytical archaeologist: 15–20. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jameson, F. 1984. Post-modernism or the cultural logic of late-capitalism, New Left Review 146: 53–93.Google Scholar
Kristeva, J. 1986. Why the United States? in Moi, T. (ed.), The Kristeva reader: 272–91. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lacoue-Labarthe, P. 1990. Heidegger, art and politics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lyotard, J.-F. 1984. The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
O’Connor, T. 1991. Science, environmental archaeology and the new scholasticism, Scottish Archaeological Review 8: 1–7.Google Scholar
Tille, C.Y. 1989. Interpreting material culture, in Hodder, I.R. (ed.), The meanings of things, 185–94. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar

References

Bintliff, J.L. (ed,). 1988. Extracting meaningfrom the past. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1978. Analytical archaeology. 2nd edition, revised by Chapman, R.. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. 1989. The condition of Post-Modernity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1990. The domestication of Europe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jameson, F. 1984. Post-modernism or the cultural logic of late-capitalism, New Left Review 146: 53–93.Google Scholar
Wilk, R.R. 1985. The ancient Maya and the political present, Journal ofAnthropologica1 Research 41: 307–26.Google Scholar