Ghent University Academic Bibliography

@article{1964558,
  abstract     = {The dichotomy modern-archaic, and the concept of modernity in particular have been used in Palaeolithic archaeology for decades as a basic frame of reference for the description of Late Pleistocene hominin behavioural variability. While a number of researchers have pointed out that the modernity concept has outlived its usefulness (mostly on empirical grounds), its simplicity appears to be difficult to give up, as it keeps resurfacing even in the writings of those who have denounced the term. In this paper, we argue that (1) the modernity concept is not only plagued by problems of an empirical nature, but also by theoretical concerns, and (2) that this is caused by an urge to get to grips with what is inherently continuous variability by means of a discrete scheme of classification.},
  author       = {Jehs, Dieter},
  issn         = {0774-3327},
  journal      = {NOTAE PRAEHISTORICAE},
  keyword      = {Neanderthals,modern humans,modernity,Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition,behaviour},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {69--85},
  title        = {The modernity myth},
  volume       = {31},
  year         = {2012},
}

Chicago

Jehs, Dieter. 2012. “The Modernity Myth.” Notae Praehistoricae 31: 69–85.

APA

Jehs, D. (2012). The modernity myth. NOTAE PRAEHISTORICAE, 31, 69–85.

Vancouver

1.

Jehs D. The modernity myth. NOTAE PRAEHISTORICAE. 2012;31:69–85.

MLA

Jehs, Dieter. “The Modernity Myth.” NOTAE PRAEHISTORICAE 31 (2012): 69–85. Print.