Fleming, A. (2006). Post-processual landscape archaeology:. Cambridge Archaeol J 16 (3). Vol 16(3), pp. 267-280.
Title The title of the publication or report |
Post-processual landscape archaeology: | ||
---|---|---|---|
Subtitle The sub title of the publication or report |
a critique | ||
Issue The name of the volume or issue |
Cambridge Archaeol J 16 (3) | ||
Series The series the publication or report is included in |
Cambridge Archaeological Journal | ||
Volume Volume number and part |
16 (3) | ||
Page Start/End The start and end page numbers. |
267 - 280 | ||
Biblio Note This is a Bibliographic record only. |
The ADS have no files for download on this page but further information is available online, normally as an electronic version maintained by the Publisher, or held in a larger collection such as an ADS Archive. Please refer to the DOI or URI listed in the Relations section of this record to locate the information you require. In the case of non-ADS resources, please be aware that we cannot advise further on availability. | ||
Publication Type The type of publication - report, monograph, journal article or chapter from a book |
Journal | ||
Abstract The abstract describing the content of the publication or report |
The author contends that post-processual theorists have characterized landscape archaeology as practised in the second half of the twentieth century as over-empirical; that they have asserted that the discipline is sterile, in that it deals inadequately with the people of the past, and is also too preoccupied with vision-privileging and Cartesian approaches; and that they have argued that it is therefore necessary to `go beyond the evidence' and to develop more experiential approaches, `archaeologies of inhabitation'. The article argues that such a critique is misguided, notably in its rejection of long-accepted modes of fieldwork and argument and in its annexation of Cosgrove's rhetoric. `Post-processual' landscape archaeology has involved the development of phenomenological approaches to past landscapes and the writing of hyper-interpretive texts (pioneered by Tilley and Edmonds respectively). It is argued that phenomenological fieldwork has produced highly questionable `results'. Some of the theoretical and practical consequences of adopting post-processual landscape archaeology are discussed; it is concluded that the new approaches are more problematic than their proponents have allowed, and that although new thinking should always be welcomed, it would not be advisable to abandon the heuristic, argument-grounded strengths of conventional landscape archaeology. | ||
Year of Publication The year the book, article or report was published |
2006 | ||
Locations Any locations covered by the publication or report. This is not the place the book or report was published. |
|
||
Source Where the record has come from or which dataset it was orginally included in. |
BIAB
(The British & Irish Archaeological Bibliography (BIAB))
|
||
Relations Other resources which are relevant to this publication or report |
|
||
Created Date The date the record of the pubication was first entered |
03 Nov 2006 |