Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:02:07.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A brief history of TAG

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Bisserka Gaydarska
Bisserka Gaydarska*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Readers will know that Antiquity, a long term supporter of TAG, now gives this most spontaneous and peripatetic of conferences a memory by hosting the ‘TAG Archive’ on its website. In this article Bisserka Gaydarska offers a preliminary analysis of TAG trends – how the subjects of talks and the speakers who gave them have changed over the past few decades. Readers are invited to comment on her findings and share their views with us by emailing us at editor@antiquity.ac.uk.

Type
Debate
Information
Antiquity , Volume 83 , Issue 322 , December 2009 , pp. 1152 - 1162
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2009

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

Bintliff, J. 1991. Post-modernism, rhetoric and scholasticism at TAG: the current state of British archaeological theory. Antiquity 65: 274–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, B. C. & Kingsbury, J. (ed.). 1979. Space, hierarchy and society: interdisciplinary studies in social area analysis (British Archaeological Reports International Series 59). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Chippindale, C. 1990. Theoretical Archaeology Group: 11th conference. Current Anthropology 31(4): 463–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Andreu, M. 2007 A world history of nineteenth-century archaeology. Nationalism, colonialism and the past. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gero, J. & Conkey, M. (ed.). 1991. Engendering archaeology: women and prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Green, D., Haselgrove, C. & Spriggs, M. (ed.). 1978. Social organisation and settlement: contributions from geography, anthropology and archaeology (British Archaeology Reports International Series (Supplementary) 47). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Fleming, A. & Johnson, M.. 1990. The Theoretical Archaeology Group (TAG): origins, retrospect, prospect. Antiquity 64: 303–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. 1986. Reading the past: current approaches to interpretation in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, M., Nelson, S. & Wylie, A. (ed.). 1994. Equity issues for women in archaeology (Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5). Arlington (VA): American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, D. 1994. Mapping women's place in contemporary archaeology, in Nelson, M., Nelson, S. & Wylie, A. (ed.) Equity issues for women in archaeology (Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5): 94–7. Arlington (VA): American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C.. 1987a. Re-constructing archaeology: theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C.. 1987b. Social theory and archaeology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Spriggs, M. (ed.) 1977. Archaeology and anthropology: areas of mutual interest (British Archaeological Reports International Series (Supplementary) 19). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. & Tilley, C.. 1992. TAG and ‘post-modernism’: a reply to John Bintliff. Antiquity 66: 106–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar