Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T20:24:57.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A site in history: archaeology at Dolní Věstonice/Unterwisternitz

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Silvia Tomášová
Silvia Tomášová*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Dolní Věstonice, a classic Palaeolithic site, is a crucial place for our understanding of human settlement in glacial Europe. In that central European zone of moving national boundaries, it has been crucial in another sense; frontiers, ideologies and attitudes have moved across the place, each time re-making the frame of ideas through which it is seen. Those changes continue. Dolní Věstonice is presently located in the Czech Republic, a state founded in 1993: it remains a site alive in history as well as in prehistory.

Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 69 , Issue 263 , June 1995 , pp. 301 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Absolon, K. 1925. A discovery as wonderful as that of Tutenkhamen’s Tomb. Moravia over 20,000 years ago, Illustrated London News 31 October 1925.Google Scholar
Absolon, K. 1926. Bericht über die palaeolithische Abteilung am mährischen Landes-Museum und die palaeolithische Forschung in Mähren, Časopis Moravského Zemského Muzea 24(11).Google Scholar
Absolon, K. 1927. Une nouvelle et importante station Aurigna–cienne en Moravie, Revue Anthropologique 27(1927): 73–88.Google Scholar
Absolon, K. 1928. Über die groβe Aurignac–Station bei Unter-Wisternitz in Mähren, Tagungsberichte der deutschen Anthropologischen Gesellschaft, Bericht über die 49. Versammlung in Köln: 57–61. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Absolon, K. 1929. An amazing Palaeolithic ‘Pompeii’ in Moravia–Parts I, II, III, Illustrated London News 23 November 1929, 30 November 1929, 14 December 1929.Google Scholar
Absolon, K. 1935. Ein Anhängsel aus einem fossilen Menschenzahn, Zeitschrift für Rassenkunde: 317 Google Scholar
Absolon, K. 1936. A vast prehistoric ‘Pompeii’ revisited, Illustrated London News 21 March 1936, 28 March 1936.Google Scholar
Absolon, K. 1937. The world’s earliest portrait–30 thousand years, Illustrated London News 2 October 1937.Google Scholar
Absolon, K. 1938a. Vyzkum diluvialni stanice lovcu mamutu v Dolních Vestonicich na Paviovskych kopcich na Morave: Pracovni zprava za prvni rok 1924. Brno. Palaeoethnologicka Serie c.4.Google Scholar
Absolon, K. 1938b. Die Erforschung der diluvialen Mammutjägerstation von Unter-Wisternitz an den Pollauer Bergen in Mähren: Arbeitsbericht über das zweite fahr 1925. Brno.Google Scholar
Absolon, K. 1945. Vyzkum diluvialni stanice lovcu mamutu v Dolních Vestonicich na Paviovskych kopcich na Morave: Pracovni zprava za treti rok 1926. Brno.Google Scholar
Absolon, K. & Klíma, B. 1977. Predmostí, ein Mammutjägerplatz in Mähren. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Arnold, B. 1990. The past as propaganda: totalitarian archaeology in Nazi Germany, Antiquity 64: 464–79.Google Scholar
Auel, J. 1990. The plains of passage. New York (NY): Bantam.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. 1924. Eine Mammutjägerstation im Löβ bei Pollau in Südmahren, Die Eiszeit 1(2): 81–8.Google Scholar
Ben-David, J. 1984. The scientist’s role in a society: a comparative study. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bohmers, A. 1940. Das eiszeitliche Frauenkopfchen von Unter-Wisternitz, Kleine Kostbarkeiten aus Kunst und Geschichte: 27–31. Berlin-Dahlem: Ahnenerbe Stiftung-Verlag.Google Scholar
Bohmers, A. 1941a. Die Ausgrabungen bei Unter-Wisternitz, Forschungen und Fortschritte 17(3).Google Scholar
Bohmers, A. 1941b. Reiche Funde eiszeitlicher Bildkunst, die Ausgrabungen bei Unter-Wisternitz, Germanien 2: 45–57.Google Scholar
Bohmers, A. 1943. Die Erforschung von Unter-Wisternitz Bericht über die Ausgrabungen von 1939–1942, Anthropos Forschungen 1.Google Scholar
Chippendale, C. 1988. The invention of the words for the idea of ‘prehistory’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54: 304–14.Google Scholar
Clermont, N. & Smith, P. 1990. Prehistoric, prehistory, pre-historian… who invented the terms?, Antiquity 64: 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, E. 1992. Nationalism and internationalism in science, 1880–1939. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daniel, G. 1963. The idea of prehistory. Cleveland (OH): World Publishing.Google Scholar
Dennell, R. 1990. Progressive gradualism, imperialism and academic fashion: Lower Palaeolithic archaeology in the 20th century, Antiquity 64: 549–58.Google Scholar
Dietler, M. 1994. ‘Our ancestors the Gauls’: archaeology, ethnic nationalism, and the manipulation of Celtic identity in modern Europe, American Anthropologist 96(3): 584–605.Google Scholar
Ermarth, M. 1978. Wilhelm Dilthey: The critique of historical reason. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fortescue, S. 1987. The Communist Party and Soviet science. Baltimore (MD): John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1970. The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences. New York (NY): Vintage.Google Scholar
Fowler, D.D. 1987. Uses of the past: archaeology in the service of the state, American Antiquity 52: 229–48.Google Scholar
Freund, G. 1944. Pschedmost. Doctoral Dissertation from the German Charles University in Prague.Google Scholar
Gathercole, P. & Lowenthal, D. (ED.). 1990. The politics of the past. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Gero, J.M., Lacy, D.M. & Blakey, M.L. (ED.). 1983. The socio-politics of archaeology. Amherst (MA): Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts. Research report 23.Google Scholar
Gojda, M. 1991. The Ancient Slavs: settlement and society. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Grayson, D.K. 1983. The establishment of human antiquity. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1989. Primate visions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hobsbawm, E.J. 1992. Ethnicity and nationalism in Europe today, Anthropology Today 8(1): 3–8.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. (ed.). 1991. Archaeological theory in Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jalevich, B. 1987. Modern Austria: Empire and republic, 1815–1986. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klíma, B. 1951. Karel Jaroslav Mäka, Časopis Moravskeho Musea v Brne 36(2): 9–20.Google Scholar
Klíma, B. 1957. Ubersicht über die jüngsten paläolitischen Forschungen in Mähren, Quartär 9: 85–130.Google Scholar
Klíma, B. 1958. Upper Palaeolithic art in Moravia, Antiquity 32: 8–14.Google Scholar
Klíma, B. 1963. Dolní Véstonice. Prague: CSAV.Google Scholar
Klíma, B. 1965. Eine neue paläolithische Ritzzeichung aus der Pekärna-Höhle in Mähren, Quartär 15/16: 167–72.Google Scholar
Klíma, B. 1968. Das Pavlovien in den Weinberghölen von Mauern, Quartär 19: 263–73.Google Scholar
Klíma, B. 1987. Mladopaleoliticky trojhrob v Dolních Véstonicích, Archeologické Rozhledy 34: 241–54.Google Scholar
Klíma, B. 1991. Der paläolithische Massengrab von Pfedmostí, Versuch einer Rekonstruktion, Quartör 41/42: 187–94.Google Scholar
Knor, A., Ložek, V., Pelíšek, J. & Žebera, K. (ed.). 1953. Dolní Véstonice. Prague: CSAV.Google Scholar
Kobylinski, Z. 1991. Theory in Polish archaeology 1960–90: searching for paradigms, in Hodder (ed.) 223–47.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K. 1990. National archaeology in the age of European integration, Antiquity 64: 825–8.Google Scholar
Laszlovsky, J. & SiklÓdi, Cs. 1991. Archaeological theory in Hungary since 1960: theories without theoretical archaeology, in Hodder (ed.) 272–98.Google Scholar
Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, H. 1990. Science as social knowledge. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lowenthal, D. 1985. The past is a foreign country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. & Woolgar, S. (ed.). 1990. Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Magocsi, P. 1993. Historical atlas of East Central Europe. Seattle (WA): University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Milisauskas, S. 1990. The People’s revolution of 1989 and archaeology in Eastern Europe, Antiquity 64: 283–5.Google Scholar
Nash, C. (ed.). 1990. Narrative in culture: The uses of storytelling in the sciences, philosophy, and literature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Neustupný, E. 1991. Recent theoretical achievements in prehistoric archaeology in Czechoslovakia, in Hodder (ed.): 248–71.Google Scholar
Palladino, P. & Worboys, M. 1993. Science and imperialism, Isis 84: 91–102.Google Scholar
Patrick, L. 1985. Is there an archaeological record? in Schiffer, M. (ed.), Advances in archaeological method and theory 8: 27–62.Google Scholar
Pinsky, V. & Wylie, A. (ed.). 1989. Critical traditions in contemporary archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pyenson, L. 1989. What is the good of history of science?, History of Science 27: 353–89.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. & Bahn, P. 1991. Archaeology: theories, methods, and practice. New York (NY): Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M. 1985 The great Devonian controversy: the shaping of scientific knowledge among gentlemanly specialists. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rupke, N.A. 1983. The study of fossils in the romantic philosophy of history and nature, History of Science 21: 389–413.Google Scholar
Schwabedissen, H.Z. Z. BEI DER WEHRMACHT. 1943. Stand und Aufgahen der Alt- und Mittelsteinzeitforschung im mährischen Raum, Zeitschrift des Mährischen Landesmuseums (n.s.) 3: 15–45.Google Scholar
Shapin, S. & Schaffer, S. 1985. Leviathan and the air-pump. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shore, C. & Black, A. 1992. The European communities and the construction of Europe, Anthropology Today 8(3): 10–11.Google Scholar
SklenÁr, K. 1985. Archaeology in Central Europe. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
SklenÁr, K. 1992. Kto byl Lothar Zotz?, Speleologie 3: 15–20.Google Scholar
Soffer, O., Vandiver, P., Klíma, B. & Svoboda, J. 1993. The pyrotechnology of performance art: Moravian Venuses and wolverines, in Knecht, H., Pike-Tay, A. & White, R. (ed.), Before Lascaux: The complete record of the early Upper Paleolithic: 259–75. Boca Raton (LA): CRC Press.Google Scholar
Svoboda, J. 1989. Middle Pleistocene adaptations in Central Europe, Journal of World Prehistory 3: 33–70.Google Scholar
Svoboda, J. (Ed.). 1991. Dolní Véstonice II, Western slope. Liége: ERAUL.Google Scholar
Svoboda, J. (Ed.). 1994. Paleolit Moravy a Slezska. Brno: AVCR. Dolní Véstonice Studies 1.Google Scholar
Thomas, D.H. 1989. Archaeology. Fort Worth (TX): Holt, Reinhart&Winston, Dryden Press.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. 1984. Alternative archaeologies: nationalist, colonialist, imperialist, Man 19: 355–70.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. 1989. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Valoch, K. 1959. Lösse un paläolithische Kulturen in der Tschechoslowakei, Quartär 10/11: 115–49.Google Scholar
Venclová, N. 1991. Introduction: archaeology in Czechoslovakia: trends and approaches, Antiquity 65: 306.Google Scholar
Wylie, A.M. 1989. The interpretive dilemma, in Pinsky & Wylie (ed.): 18–27.Google Scholar
Yoffee, N. & Sherratt, A. (ed.). 1993. Archaeological theory: who sets the agenda? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zotz, L. 1940. Ist Böhmen-Mähren die Urheimat der Tschechen? Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth.Google Scholar
Zotz, L. 1944. Von den Mammutjägern zu den Wikingern: Ergebnisse und Aufgaben der böhmisch-mährischen Vorgeschichtskunde. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth.Google Scholar