28th February 2005, 01:10 PM
Read An introduction to Archaeological Theory', by Johnson.
Actually quite readable, lanks up well to theories and other humanist discipliones and social sciences. For god's sake avoind anything by Binford. His 2001 tome 'Constructing Frames of Reference...' about hunter gatherers seems like something strainght out of the late 19th century.
Oh, and Chris Gosden's 'Archaeology and Anthropology; a changing relationship' is good as well.
Put simply, there are good and bad theories. BUT, there are also good and bad writers. Some people could not explain their way out of a paper bag. You should not really need an extensive grounding in French post-Structuralism to understand it, and if you feel you do, it is just badly written.
Actually quite readable, lanks up well to theories and other humanist discipliones and social sciences. For god's sake avoind anything by Binford. His 2001 tome 'Constructing Frames of Reference...' about hunter gatherers seems like something strainght out of the late 19th century.
Oh, and Chris Gosden's 'Archaeology and Anthropology; a changing relationship' is good as well.
Put simply, there are good and bad theories. BUT, there are also good and bad writers. Some people could not explain their way out of a paper bag. You should not really need an extensive grounding in French post-Structuralism to understand it, and if you feel you do, it is just badly written.