What an intriguing story. I am impressed that the
Poles are still concerned to take credit for something
Childe said all those years ago, even though it was a
fundamental advance in archaeological thinking.
If I had the time and motivation I'd like to unravel
his Marxist theorising though doubtless someone has
already done it. I am always amazed when I look at
Scotland before the Scots ( I think it was) and see
how dogmatic he was in applying social theory to
Best wishes for your quest. Euan.
--- Paul Barford <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks Euan, the Nearly-Friday competition is closed
> and Simon Stevens won.
> yes Childe referred to Dimini in his "Dawn" (not the
> "Danube" I think), but
> I am in dispute with a couple of rampant
> nationalist (and rather
> unpleasant) Polish archaeology professors where he
> got his famous words in
> the Danube from:
> "We find certain types of remains - pots,
> implements, ornaments, burial
> rites, house forms - constantly occurring together.
> Such a complex of
> regularly associated traits we shall term a
> 'cultural group' or just a
> 'culture'. ."
> They say he copied them from a Polish archaeologist
> Leon Kozlowski. This is
> nonsense, and its what my article is about. Firstly
> I show they quote their
> hero totally out of context in order to "prove"
> Childe's debt to him, and
> secondly I have found out where Childe actually was
> plagiarising (though it
> might have been unintentional).
> Which suggests a Friday competition. The first
> person whose email reaches me
> OFF-LIST please (I dont want the Poles looking over
> our shoulders and
> beating me to press) as to where specifically those
> words were in fact
> lifted by Childe from gets a prize (bar of Polish
> chocolate sent by
> snailmail). Is this generally known and I just
> missed it in my undergrad
> years (possible) or have I found by accident a nice
> bit of archaeological
> trivia in my "discussions" with our central European
> Paul Barford