Suchergebnisse

Life-writing is a vital part of the history of archaeology, and a growing field of scholarship within the discipline. Travels and adventures of the 'great archaeologists' have generated centuries-worth of bestselling books that, in turn, shaped the public perception of archaeology. The lives of archaeologists are entangled with histories of museums and collections, developments in science and scholarship, and narratives of nationalism and colonialism into the present. In recent years life-writing has played an important role in the surge of new research in the history of archaeology, including ground-breaking studies of discipline formation, institutionalisation and social and intellectual networks. Sources such as diaries, wills, film and the growing body of digital records are powerful tools for highlighting the contributions of hitherto marginalised archaeological lives including many pioneering women, hired labourers and other 'hidden hands'.

This book brings together critical perspectives on life-writing in the history of archaeology from leading figures in the field. These include studies of archive formation and use, the concept of 'dig-writing' as a distinctive genre of archaeological creativity and reviews of new sources for already well-known lives. Several chapters reflect on the experience of life-writing, review the historiography of the field and assess the intellectual value and significance of life-writing as a genre. Together, they work to problematise underlying assumptions about this genre, foregrounding methodology, social theory, ethics and other practice-focused frameworks in conscious tension with previous practices.

Der Artikel untersucht die Bedeutung von sozialen Netzwerken in der Geschichte der Archäologie. Im Rückgriff auf biographische und prosopographische Ansätze soll eine geeignete Methode zur Untersuchung der Entwicklung des Fachs herausgearbeitet werden und eine Alternative zu den traditionellen Erzählungen in der Archäologiegeschichte. Anhand einer Fallstudie über die miteinander verbundenen politischen und archäologischen Netzwerke in den frühen britischen Mandaten Palästina und Transjordanien werden allgemeine Kategorien für die Interpretation und Visualisierung von sozialen Netzwerken diskutiert. Die Analyse sozialer Netzwerke gibt Einblick in den historischen Kontext archäologischer Arbeit und erlaubt es, die Rollen von Männern und Frauen, Politikern, Soldaten, Künstlern, Architekten und Sponsoren bei der Ausgrabung, Interpretation, Präsentation und Rezeption von Archäologie zu untersuchen.

Poslednjih decenija, u okviru širih kritičkih preispitivanja osnova arheologije, posebno u literaturi na engleskom jeziku, objavljen je niz radova koji ukazuju na genezu i teorijski okvir u kojem su nastali pojedini ključni koncepti unutar discipline. Sama osnova arheologije tako je smeštena u kulturni, politički i ideološki kontekst zapadne Evrope kraja XVIII i početka XIX veka. Na drugoj strani, ova strategija izučavanja prošlosti krajem XIX veka postala je deo akademskog života i u drugim sredinama (na primer, u Srbiji), gde su okolnosti bile sasvim drugačije. Pa ipak, osnovni koncepti preneti iz svog originalnog konteksta, nužno su pretrpeli transformacije i potom primenjivani sa dugotrajnim posledicama. Stoga je istraživanje istorije arheologije u različitim lokalnim sredinama značajno ne samo za same te sredine, već i za razumevanje društvene uloge i značaja arheološkog istraživanja uopšte. ; Over the last decades, in the framework of the wider critical reassessments of archaeological theory and practice, especially in the English-speaking literature, a number of writings have been published, pointing to the origins and theoretical background in which some of the basic concepts of the discipline were developed. The very essence of archaeology has thus been situated into the cultural, political and ideological context of Western Europe at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century. On the other hand, by the end of the 19th century this strategy of study into the past has become a part of the academic life in other contexts (such as Serbia), where the general circumstances were utterly different. However, the basic concepts were transferred from their original setting, inevitably undergone transformations, and then applied with long-lasting consequences. Therefore, the importance of the study of the history of archaeology in various local settings surpasses local concerns, but contributes to deeper understanding of the social role and importance of archaeological research in general.

Der Aufsatz zeigt, dass in staatlichen Administrationen angewendete Verfahren der Beobachtung und der Aufzeichnung auf zufällige Weise in die Forschungspraktiken verschiedener Wissenschaften eingingen, so auch in die Archäologie. Rundschreiben oder Fragebögen, Bestandslisten und Berichte, das französische Modell medizinischer Post-mortem-Untersuchungen sowie Verfahren, die Topographen, Piloten und Militäringenieure verwendeten, gingen aus der bürokratischen in die wissenschaftliche Praxis über. Die archäologischen Objekte, die in die Sammlungen kamen, waren somit (wissenschaftlich) aufbereitet mittels Verfahren, die ursprünglich für die staatliche Verwaltung, die Konstruktionstechnik oder die Wirtschaft entwickelt worden waren.

Preface -- Contents -- Contributors -- Chapter 1: Introduction to Archaeology of the Communist Era -- Introduction -- Chapter 2: Sickle, Hammer, and Trowel: Theory and Practice of Archaeology Under Communism -- Introduction -- Archaeology and Ideology -- Archaeology and Political Change -- "Communist Archaeology" Data and Methods -- The Stalinist Era -- The Thaw -- Socialism with a Human Face -- 1980s and Perestroika -- Discussion -- Archaeology as History-with-Spade -- Exploratory Thoughts on Archaeological Theory Under Communism: Historical and Dialectical Materialism -- Dialectical and Materialistic Approach to the Past -- University Teaching 1945-1956 (Stalinist Era) -- University Teaching in the 1960s (The Thaw) -- Socialism with the Human Face and Perestroika (the 1970s and 1980s) -- Publications with No Theoretical Content -- Publications with Historical Materialism as Methodology -- Publications with Historical Materialism as Theory -- Publications with Marxist-Inspired Theoretical Trends -- Comparative Data on Publications -- Marxist Thoughts in Archaeologies Outside of the Warsaw Pact -- The "Red Tail" Tactic -- State Control and National Archaeologies -- State Sponsoring: Centralization of Funding -- Hierarchal Structure of Archaeological Institutions -- Archaeology as State Propaganda: National Archaeologies -- Cuba and the Caribbean Region -- Former Yugoslavia -- Communist China -- Archaeology and the Public -- Marxist-Inspired Archaeology and Postcolonial Context -- Conclusions -- References -- Chapter 3: Archaeology in Soviet Russia -- Preamble -- Marxism in My Biography -- Archaeology in the Revolution and Revolution in Archaeology -- Catastrophe and Innovations -- Moscow Dash -- Leningrad Breakthrough -- Summing up the Revolutionary Period -- Archaeology and the Process of Stalinization

Two recent contributions (Oyuela-Caycedo 1994 and Politis 1995) to analyses of the intellectual development of archaeology in Latin America provide us with new perspectives. A theme shared by both is the perception by the authors of a need to distance the development of archaeology in Latin American countries from the overweening influence of Europe and especially U. S. archaeologists.Politis argues that U.S. influence has been tantamount to 'cultural imperialism' (1995:226). He sees U.S. archaeologists as having a history of appropriating and manipulating the knowledge of the past which ignores the local peoples own traditional perceptions of their patrimony, and argues that the U.S. perspective is designed to satisfy the needs of western scholarship but fails to enter a dialog with the legitimate concerns of the subject countries.Oyuela·Caycedo's introductory essay in his book "Nationalism and Archaeology" carries a very similar message. He faults U.S. archaeologists for failing to locate their studies in the areas social and local context, which he sees as leading the U.S. scholars to employ a model derived from "dependency theory" (1994:5), resulting in an overly simplistic perception of the context for the development of archaeological disciplines in respective Latin American countries.

One of the continuing problems for students of the history of our discipline is the tendency for retrospectives to identify and discuss the same 'big names' in the field, as if these individuals were the only 'players' or 'actors' involved. Thus in Bolivia, for example, a list of prominent archaeologists working in the mid-20th century often gets limited to Europeans such as Stig Ryden and Heinz Walter, Americans such as Wendell C. Bennett and Alfred Kidder, and Bolivians such as Arturo Posnansky and Carlos Ponce Sanginés. With respect to the in-country, Bolivian contributors, then, one comes away with the impression that the baton passed rather seamlessly from Posnansky to Ponce.There is a vibrant community of young archaeologists in La Paz, Bolivia, who have started new web-sites, new journals, new advanced degree programs, and even pushed through some 'cultural resource management' legislation. Two of these scholars, Carlos Lémuz Aguirre and Claudia Rivera Casanovas, are the new editors of the recently revived journal Nuevos Aportes. The first (and for many years only) issue of Nuevos Aportes came out in 1992. There thus has been nearly a fifteen year gap between that premier issue and the current issue No. 2. Utilizing new web-technology, this journal now is wholly a web-based publication, accessible through .

Juhana Krēma monogrāfija "Ordeņa rudens" detalizēti aplūko Vācu ordeņa vēsturi Livonijā 16. gadsimtā. Ieinteresēts lasītājs šajā grāmatā atradīs daudz jaunas informācijas par dažādām tēmām – no ordeņa iekšējās struktūras, tā varas īstenošanas un saimniecības līdz detalizētai diskusijai par diplomātiju, politiku un karu. Aplūkoto norišu hronoloģija aptver laiku no 1525. līdz 1562. gadam un ietver padziļinātu pētījumu par reformāciju Livonijā un Krievzemes–Livonijas 1558.–1562. gada karu no ordeņa skatu punkta. Atšķirībā no tradicionālās Igaunijas un Latvijas vēstures periodizācijas, saskaņā ar kuru Krievzemes–Livonijas karš tiek uzskatīts par viduslaiku beigu robežu, Juhans Krēms konsekventi uzlūko 16. gadsimtu kā agros jaunos laikus, pretstatot to iepriekšējam – "viduslaiku" periodam. Tas ir apliecinājums autora eiropeiskajai pieejai vēstures rakstīšanā. Grāmata nav nacionālās vēstures izklāsts, bet gan pētījums par militāru reliģisku ordeni vienā konkrētā Eiropas reģionā.

No longer is Archaeology regarded as a neutral or a purely scientific discipline, but as a process influenced by the aims of its practitioners, who are, in turn, deeply affected by contemporary intellectual, social and political agendas. As well, research undertaken on archaeological practice in non-western settings, that is closely related to colonial issues, has highlighted how archaeology could be a tool of scientific, cultural, political and socio-economic domination (e.g. Diaz-Andreu 2007; Kane 2003; Silberman 1989; Trigger 1984).