Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:49:28.433Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The perils of pseudo-Orwellianism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Stephen Chrisomalis
Stephen Chrisomalis*
Affiliation:
*Department of Anthropology, McGill University, Leacock Building, Rm. 717, 855 Sherbrooke St. West, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2T7 (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Debate
Information
Antiquity , Volume 81 , Issue 311 , 1 March 2007 , pp. 204 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2007

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

Bentley, R. A. 2006. Academic copying, archaeology and the English language. Antiquity 80(307): 196–201.Google Scholar
Dobres, M. A. & Robb, J. E.. 2005. “Doing” agency: introductory remarks on methodology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(3): 159–66.Google Scholar
Dobres, M. A. & Robb, J. E. (ed.). 2000. Agency in Archaeology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dornan, J. L. 2002. Agency and archaeology: past, present, and future directions. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9(4): 303–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ISI Web of Knowledge. 2006 [online]. [Accessed 18 July 2006]. Available from World Wide Web: <http://portal.isiknowledge.com/portal.cgi>>Google Scholar
Johnson, M. H. 1989. Conceptions of agency in archaeological interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8: 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Masterman, M. 1970. “The Nature of a Paradigm,” in Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. (ed.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: 59–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mullins, P. R. 2001. Review of Technology and Social Agency and Agency in Archaeology . American Antiquity 66(4): 755–56.Google Scholar
Orwell, G. 1946. Politics and the English language. The Penguin essays of George Orwell: 348–60. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Orwell, G. 1949. Nineteen Eighty-Four. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. 2006 [online]. [Accessed 18 July 2006]. Available from World Wide Web: <http://dictionary.oed.com/>>Google Scholar
Patterson, T. C. 1989. History and the postprocessual archaeologies. Man 24: 555–66.Google Scholar
Saitta, D. 1994. Agency, class, and archaeological interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13: 201–27.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. & Tilley, C.. 1992. TAG and ‘post-modernism’: a reply to John Bintliff. Antiquity 66(250): 106–14.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. G. 2003. Archaeological theory: the big picture. Grace Elizabeth Shallit Memorial Lecture Series. Provo, Utah: Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University.Google Scholar
VanPool, C. S. & Pool, T. L. Van. 1999. The scientific nature of postprocessualism. American Antiquity 64: 33–53.Google Scholar