Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T19:33:54.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Editorial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Simon Stoddart  and
Caroline Malone
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 76 , Issue 291 , March 2002 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2002

References

References

Blanton, R. 1998. Beyond centralization: Steps towards a theory of egalitarian behavior in archaic states, in Feinman, & Marcus, (ed.), Archaic States: 135–72. Santa Fe (NM): School of American Research.Google Scholar
Blanton, R., Feinman, G., Kowalewski, S. & Peregrine, P.. 1996. A dual-processual theory for the evolution of Mesoamerican civilization, Current Anthropology 37: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumfiel, E. 1992. Distinguished lecture in archaeology: Breaking and entering the ecosystem — gender, class and faction steal the show, American Anthropologist 94: 551–67.Google Scholar
Brumfiel, K. & Fox, J.. 1994. Factional competition and political development in the New World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Demarrais, K, Castillo, L. J. & Earle, T. 1996. Ideology, materialization, and power strategies, Current Anthropology 37: 15–85.Google Scholar
Dobres., M.-A. & Robb, J.. 2000. Agency in archaeology. London: Rout ledge.Google Scholar
Feinman, G. & Marcus, J. (ed.). 1998. Archaic states. Santa Fe (NM): School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
Gero, J. 2000. Troubled travels in agency and feminism, in Dobres & Robb (ed.): 34–9.Google Scholar
Hare, T. 2000. Between the household and the empire: structural relationships within and among Aztec communities and politics, in CanuLo, M. & Yaeger, J. (ed.), The archaeology of communities: a New World perspective: 78–101. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. 2000. Self-made men and the staging of agency, in Dobres, & Robb, (ed.), Agency in archaeology: 213–31. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marcus, J. 1993. Ancient Maya political organization, in Sabloff, J. & Henderson, J. (ed.), Lowland Maya civilization in the 8th century AD: 111–83. Washington (DC): Dumbarton Oaks.Google Scholar
Marcus, J. 1998. The peaks and valleys of ancient stales: An extension of the dynamic model, in Feinman & Marcus (ed.): 59–94.Google Scholar

References

Carandini, A. 1997. La nascita di Roma. Dèi, Lari, Eroi e Uomini all’alba di una civiltà. Torino: Giulio Einaudi Editori.Google Scholar
Carandini, A. & Cappelli, R. (ed.). 2000. Roma. Romolo, Remo e la fondazione della città. Milano: Electa.Google Scholar
Flannery, K. V. 1999. Process and agency in early state formation, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9(1): 3–21.Google Scholar
Gledhill, J. 1988. Introduction. The comparative analysis of social and political transitions, in Gledhill, J., Bender, B. & Larsen, T. (ed.), State and society: 3–21. London: Unwin & Hyman.Google Scholar
Kohl, P. L. 1987. State formation: useful concept or idée fixe?, in Patterson, T. & Gailey, C. W. (ed.), Power relations and State formation: 27–34. Washington (DC): American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
Mithen, S. J. 1996. The prehistory of the mind: a scarch for the origins of art, science and religion. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Rainbird, P. & Hamilakis, Y.. 2001. Interrogating pedagogies. Archaeology in higher education. (Lampeter Workshop in Archaeology 3). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International series S948.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & C. Tilley. 1987. Social theory and archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

References

Giot, P.-R. 1987. Barnenez Carn Guennoc. Rennes: Travaux du Laboratoire ‘Anthropologie–Préhistoire–Protohistoire et Quaternaire Armoricains — Rennes’.Google Scholar
Giot, P.-R. 1995. Bretagne des Mégalithes. Rennes: Éditions Ouest-France.Google Scholar
Giot, P.-R. 1997. Chronique de préhistoire et de protohistoire finistériennes et des archéosciences pour 1996, Bullelin de la Société archéologique du Finistère 126: 11–32.Google Scholar
Monnier, J.-L. & Langouet, L. (ed.). 1990. La Bretagne et L’Europe Préhistoriques. Mémoire en hommage à Pierre-Roland Giot. Rennes: Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest. Supplément 2 (1990).Google Scholar
Jones, R. & Megaw, V.. 2000. Confessions of a wild colonial boy, Australian Archaeology 50: 12–26.Google Scholar
Anderson, A., Lilley, I. & O’Connor, S. (ed.). 2001. Histories of old ages: Essays in Honour of Rhys Jones. Canberra: Pandanus Books, The Australian National University.Google Scholar