I think there is not point in debating whether the archaeologists of
this or that country invented this or that theory or model first or
who is better informed of trends in general social theory. However,
there can be no doubt that, judging from the reference lists,
continental European (and apparently also non-European
non-anglophone) archaeologists tend to be much better informed about
the recent and past developments in the anglophone world than vice
versa.
Therefore, anglophone archaeologists run a certain danger to invent
the wheel a second time and this would be simply a waste of resources.
Nils
___________________________
*Nils Mueller-Scheessel M.A.
*Roemisch-Germanische Kommission des DAI
*Palmengartenstr. 10-12
*60325 Frankfurt/Main
*Germany
>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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|