Ritið : tímarit Hugvísindastofnunar - 01.05.2004, Blaðsíða 214

IAN HODDER
Ritaskrá
Amold, B. 1990. The past as propaganda: totalitarian archaeology in Nazi Gernrany.
Antiquity 64, bls. 464-78.
Bapty, J. og Yates, T. 1990. Archaeology afier structuralism. London.
Barkett,J. 1994. Fragments from Antiquity. Oxford.
Binford, L.R. 1978. Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. New York.
Castells, E. 1996. The rise ofthe network society. Oxford.
Clarke, D. I. 1973. Archaeology: the loss of innocence. Antiquity 47, bls. 6-18.
Deetz, J. 1977. In small things forgotten. New York.
Dobres, M.-A. 1999. Technology and social agency. Oxford.
Dunnell, R.C. 1989. Aspects of the application of evolutionarj7 theory in archaeolog}t I
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. (nxst\.).ArchaeoIogical thought in Anterica. Canibridge, bls. 35-
49.
Feyerabend, P. 1975. Against method. London.
Flannery, K. 1973. Archaeology with a capital S. I Redman, C. (ritstj.). Research and theoty
in current archaeology. New York, bls. 47-58.
Friedman, J. og Rowlands, M. 1978. The evolution ofSocial Systems. London.
Fritz, J. og Plog, F. 1970. The nature of archaeological explanation. American Antiquity
35, bls. 405-12.
Funarl, P. 1995. Mixed features of archaeological theory in Brazil. I Ucko, P. (ritstj.).
Theoty in archaeology. A worldperspective. London, bls. 236-50.
Gero, J. og Conkey, M. 1991. Engendering archaeology. Oxford.
Gosden, C. 1994. Social being and time. Oxford.
Harris, E.C. 1989. Principles of drchaeological stratigraphy. London (2. útg.).
Hawkes, C. 1954. Archaeological theory and method: some suggestions from the old
world. American Anthropologist 56, bls. 155-68.
Hodder, I. 1972. Locational models and the smdy of Romano-British settlement. I
Clarke, D.L. (ritstj.) Models in archaeology. London, bls. 887-909.
Hodder, I. 1982a. Symbols in action. Cambridge.
Hodder, I. 1982b. Symbolic and structural archaeology. Cambridge.
Hodder, I. 1991. Archaeological theoty in Europe: the last three decades. London.
Hodder, I. 1999. The archaeologicalprocess. Oxford.
Johnson, M. 1999. Archaeological theoiy. An introduction. Oxford.
Keeley, L. 1980. Experimental deterniination ofstone tool uses: a microwear analysis. Chicago.
Kuhn, T. 1962. The structure of Scietttific revolutions. Chicago.
Kus, S. 1992. Toward an archaeology of body and soul. I Gardin, J.-C. og Pebbles, C.S.
(ritstj.). Representations in archaeology. Bloomington, bls. 168-77.
Langford, R.F. 1983. Our heritage - your playground. Australian archaeolog/ 16, bls. 1-6.
Layton, R. 1989. Conflict in the archaeology ofliving traditions. London.
Leone M., Potter, P. og Shackel, P. 1987. Toward a critical archaeologjt Current
Anthropology 28, bls. 283-302.
Mamani Condori, C. 1989. History and prehistory in Bolma: VlTiat about the Indians?
I Layton, R. Conflict in the archaeology ofliving traditions. London, bls. 46-59.
Matthews, W., French, C., MavsTence, T. og Cuder, D. 1996. Mnltiple Surfaces: the
micromorphology. I Hodder, I. (ritstj.). On the sutface. McDonald Archaeological
Institute and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, bls. 301-42.
Meskell, L. 1999. Archaeologies of social lives. Oxford.
212