The Triviality of the New: Innovation and impact in archaeology and beyond

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Standard

The Triviality of the New: Innovation and impact in archaeology and beyond. / Sørensen, Tim Flohr.

I: Current Swedish Archaeology, Bind 26, 02.07.2019, s. 93-117.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Sørensen, TF 2019, 'The Triviality of the New: Innovation and impact in archaeology and beyond', Current Swedish Archaeology, bind 26, s. 93-117.

APA

Sørensen, T. F. (2019). The Triviality of the New: Innovation and impact in archaeology and beyond. Current Swedish Archaeology, 26, 93-117.

Vancouver

Sørensen TF. The Triviality of the New: Innovation and impact in archaeology and beyond. Current Swedish Archaeology. 2019 jul 2;26:93-117.

Author

Sørensen, Tim Flohr. / The Triviality of the New: Innovation and impact in archaeology and beyond. I: Current Swedish Archaeology. 2019 ; Bind 26. s. 93-117.

Bibtex

@article{c442fcdf68644a4dac731e9d17d8f903,
title = "The Triviality of the New: Innovation and impact in archaeology and beyond",
abstract = "What drives archaeology? Is it new empirical discoveries, new methods or new theory? These factors combined are the fuel of the discipline, is the obvious answer. However, debates and research articles frequently reveal how a perceived need for novelty, originality and impact tends to disentangle this triumvirate of archaeological virtues, giving precedence to one asset over others as the supposed driving force. Focusing on archaeological theory,this article taps into current discussions of the nature of archaeological change, reviewing debates on the formation of archaeological theory, its legitimisation and usefulness. Specifically, I address a recent claim that archaeological theory too readily undermines itself by adopting immature ideas and concepts from other disciplines in an uncritical pursuit of novelty. Finally, I discuss how archaeology may contribute more generally to the formation of theory in the humanities by returning so-called borrowed theory.",
keywords = "Faculty of Humanities, Archaeological theory, novelty, impact, borrowing, Object-Oriented Ontology",
author = "S{\o}rensen, {Tim Flohr}",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "2",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "93--117",
journal = "Current Swedish Archaeology",
issn = "1102-7355",
publisher = "Svenska Arkeologiska Samfundet",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Triviality of the New: Innovation and impact in archaeology and beyond

AU - Sørensen, Tim Flohr

PY - 2019/7/2

Y1 - 2019/7/2

N2 - What drives archaeology? Is it new empirical discoveries, new methods or new theory? These factors combined are the fuel of the discipline, is the obvious answer. However, debates and research articles frequently reveal how a perceived need for novelty, originality and impact tends to disentangle this triumvirate of archaeological virtues, giving precedence to one asset over others as the supposed driving force. Focusing on archaeological theory,this article taps into current discussions of the nature of archaeological change, reviewing debates on the formation of archaeological theory, its legitimisation and usefulness. Specifically, I address a recent claim that archaeological theory too readily undermines itself by adopting immature ideas and concepts from other disciplines in an uncritical pursuit of novelty. Finally, I discuss how archaeology may contribute more generally to the formation of theory in the humanities by returning so-called borrowed theory.

AB - What drives archaeology? Is it new empirical discoveries, new methods or new theory? These factors combined are the fuel of the discipline, is the obvious answer. However, debates and research articles frequently reveal how a perceived need for novelty, originality and impact tends to disentangle this triumvirate of archaeological virtues, giving precedence to one asset over others as the supposed driving force. Focusing on archaeological theory,this article taps into current discussions of the nature of archaeological change, reviewing debates on the formation of archaeological theory, its legitimisation and usefulness. Specifically, I address a recent claim that archaeological theory too readily undermines itself by adopting immature ideas and concepts from other disciplines in an uncritical pursuit of novelty. Finally, I discuss how archaeology may contribute more generally to the formation of theory in the humanities by returning so-called borrowed theory.

KW - Faculty of Humanities

KW - Archaeological theory

KW - novelty

KW - impact

KW - borrowing

KW - Object-Oriented Ontology

M3 - Journal article

VL - 26

SP - 93

EP - 117

JO - Current Swedish Archaeology

JF - Current Swedish Archaeology

SN - 1102-7355

ER -

ID: 212123739