Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:43:42.594Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Different languages. An interview on archaeology in Germany with Friedrich Lüth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2010

Alexander Gramsch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This is an interview about archaeology in Germany and beyond. Friedrich Lüth, currently president of the European Association of Archaeologists, among other positions, talks about archaeological practice and thought in Germany and Europe and the relationship between both. Is German pre- and protohistoric archaeology still best known for its disciplined approaches to material evidence and the thoroughness with regard to the data (Härke 1989)? Are there still concerns whether it is atheoretical (Klejn 1993)? In this interview Lüth reflects on university chairs versus ‘schools’, we hear about how to gain new facts and how to deconstruct interpretations, and we learn about the sixteenfold German heritage management – archaeology is the competence of the sixteen Bundesländer (states) rather than of the Bund, because state archaeological services as well as the universities fall under the laws of the states, not under federal laws. Topics range from the Bologna process to Germany's attitude towards ‘world archaeology’, from positivism to plurality, and from budgets to languages. We also learn much about the self-perception of archaeology in Germany as a subject between data and theory, between humanities and sciences, and between knowledge production and public relevance.

Keywords

archaeological practice and theoryGermanyEuropeheritage managementteaching
Type
Interview
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , December 2010 , pp. 199 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Arnold, B., 2006: ‘Arierdämmerung’. Race and archaeology in Nazi Germany, World archaeology 38 (1), 8–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulestin, B., Zeeb-Lanz, A., Jeunesse, C., Haack, F., Arbogast, R.-M. and Denaire, A., 2009: Mass cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture at Herxheim (Palatinate, Germany), Antiquity 83 (322), 968–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawdy, S.L., 2009: Millenial archaeology. Locating the discipline in the age of insecurity, Archaeological dialogues 16 (2), 131–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, U., 2005: Archaeology in the Third Reich. Academic scholarship and the rise of the ‘lunatic fringe’, Archaeological dialogues 12 (1), 91–102.Google Scholar
Härke, H. 1989: The Unkel Symposia. The beginnings of a debate in West German Archaeology? Current anthropology 30 (3), 406–10.Google Scholar
Härke, H. (ed.), 2000: Archaeology, ideology and society. The German experience, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Klejn, L., 1993: Is German archaeology atheoretical? Comments on Georg Kossack, ‘Prehistoric Archaeology in Germany: Its History and Current Situation’, Norwegian archaeological review 26, 49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Körner, G. and Laux, F., 1980: Ein Königreich an der Luhe, Lüneburg.Google Scholar
Kossack, G., 1992: Prehistoric archaeology in Germany. Its history and current situation. Norwegian archaeological review 25, 73–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kossack, G., 1999: Prähistorische Archäologie in Deutschland im Wandel der geistigen und politischen Situation, Munich.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K., 2001: Borders of ignorance. Research communities and language, in Kobylinski, Z. (ed.), Quo vadis archaeologia? Whither archaeology in the 21st century? Warsaw, 38–44.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K., 2004: Genes versus agents. A discussion of the widening theoretical gap in archaeology, Archaeological dialogues 11 (2), 77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leube, A. (ed.), 2002: Prähistorie und Nationalsozialismus. Die mittel- und osteuropäische Ur- und Frühgeschichtsforschung in den Jahren 1933–1945. Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Lüth, F.,Olivier, A. and Willems, W., 2000: Europas Landesarchäologen rücken zusammen. Archäologie in Deutschland 2 (2000), 4–5.Google Scholar
Marchand, S.L., 1996: Down from Olympus. Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750–1970. Princeton.Google Scholar
Müller-Karpe, H., 2008: Religionsarchäologie. Archäologische Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Neustupny, E., 1998: Mainstreams and minorities in archaeology, Archaeologia Polona 35–36, 13–23.Google Scholar
Sommer, U., 2002: Deutscher Sonderweg oder gehemmte Entwicklung? Einige Bemerkungen zu momentanen Entwicklungen der deutschen Archäologie, in Biehl, P.F., Gramsch, A. and Marciniak, A. (eds), Archaeologies of Europe. History, methods and theories, Münster, 185–96.Google Scholar
Trebsche, P., Müller-Scheeßel, N. and Reinhold, S. (eds), 2010: Der gebaute Raum. Bausteine einer Architektursoziologie vormoderner Gesellschaften, Münster (Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher 7).Google Scholar
Veit, U. 1989: Ethnic concepts in German prehistory. A case study on the relationship between cultural identity and archaeological objectivity, in Shennan, S. (ed.), Archaeological approaches to cultural identity, London (One World Archaeology 10), 35–56.Google Scholar
Wolfram, S., 2000: ‘Vorsprung durch Technik’ or ‘Kossinna-Syndrom’? Archaeological theory and social context in post-war West Germany, in Härke, H. (ed.), Archaeology, ideology and society. The German experience, Frankfurt am Main, 180–201.Google Scholar