Abstract
Contemporary archaeologies are complex and diverse. It is easier to find things that differentiateprehistoric archaeology, for example, (e.g. Childe 1929) from the archaeology of the contemporary past(Buchli and Lucas 2001) than to identify what both share. The same claim applies to a history ofarchaeology as such. To simplify, to indicate the differences between culture-historical archaeology,processual archaeology and post-processual archaeologies does not cause many problems (Trigger 2006).However, in this article I claim that these archaeologies use in a very same way the ideas of what ‘new’ and‘critique’ in archaeology are about. The thesis of this text is: there is usually not so much truly new in theideas that are described as new and innovative (Žižek 2008).
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
