At 09:47 AM 10/12/00 +0100, Cornelius Holtorf wrote:
>An example which I find much worse is a recent book on the 'Archaeology of
>Ethnicity' where the author is apparently completely unaware of all the
>meters of books and journal papers that were published on precisely this
>issue in Central and Eastern Europe for almost a hundred years (this is one
>of the few topics where a comprehensice theoretical discussion has in fact
>taken place in these regions). The scandal is not the ignorance of the
>author (because we all are mortals) but that this book got published under
>such a general title despite its obvious flaws -- as if noone had noticed!
>This brings us back to what Paul said about the perception of book titles
>in different archaeological traditions. There is also a commercial point
>here because publishers nowadays try to sell books by making every book
>look like a general textbook which most simply cannot live up to. It is up
>to us (anglo-phone) authors to resist this in the name of honesty and
>solidarity with colleagues in other parts of the world.
If the book you have in mind is, as I suspect, Siān Jones's _Archaeology of
Ethnicity. Constructing Identities in the Past and Present_ (London/New
York, 1997), I am not sure about your point. It's true that this book, a
slightly modified version of Jones's 1994 dissertation at the U of
Southhampton, focuses mainly on debates within the Anglo-Saxon world
(starting with Barth and Childe). But Jones also edited (and wrote the
introduction to) a collection of studies, _Cultural Identity and
Archaeology. The Construction of European Communities_ (London/New York,
1996), which shows a lot of concern with Continental developments. On the
other hand, you must know, I am sure, that the "almost a hundred years" of
discussion of ethnicity(-cum-archaeology) in Central and East European
archaeology were characteristically anchored in culture-historical models.
Moreover, I do not remember any major contribution to this "comprehensive
theoretical discussion" making any reference to either Barth or Abner
Cohen, two of the most important names in the recent (pre-Bentley) debates
about what ethnicity is and how it works. When looking for a solid
theoretical framework, German participants in this debate tend to cite
Weber and seem to ignore more recent contributions in their own academic
world (e.g., Burkhard Ganzer). Since anthropology in Continental Europe is
understood as ethnography, there is little impact of what is otherwise
known as "social anthropology" (a very British thing, if you ask me!...)
upon theoretical debates in archaeology. Further to the east, Otto Bauer,
Joseph Stalin, and Julian Bromley seem to have served better the
theoretical needs of local archaeologists than innovative approaches
associated with "Western" names. In certain countries, historians and
scholars in the field of Political Studies know more about Bentley and
Anderson than local archaeologists. Why isn't this situation "scandalous"?
There is comparatively little concern with the history of archaeology (pace
Sklenar), but the tendency seems to be to treat "native archaeology" as the
only existing model of "good archaeology". I am sure Paul Barford could
tell us more about the dangers of self-confidence in the archaeology of
Eastern Europe.
Florin
_____________________________________________________________
Florin Curta
Department of History
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
University of Florida
4411 Turlington Hall
P.O. Box 117320
Gainesville, FL 32611-7320
Phone: (352) 392-0271
FAX: (352) 392-6927
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/fcurta
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
