Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:53:18.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

German-speaking archaeology is more

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Thomas Meier
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a way – as the authors admit themselves – Kerstin Hofmann's and Philipp Stockhammer's paper is very German. Most of their paper reads like a long catalogue, collecting and arranging as many recent GSA contributions to anglophone debates as the authors could find. In the end their catalogue sums up to the impressive number of around four hundred references.

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , June 2017 , pp. 29 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Bintliff, J.L., 2001: Review of ‘Towards translating the past. Georg Kossack – Selected studies in archaeology. Ten essays Written from the year 1974 to 1997 (Rahden/Westf. 1998)’ edited by Bernhard Hänsel and Anthony F. Harding, European journal of archaeology 4, 284–85.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J.L., 2011a: The death of archaeological theory?, in Bintliff, J. and Pearce, Mark (eds), The death of archaeological theory?, Oxford, 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloemers, T., 2000: German archaeology at risk? A neighbour's critical view of tradition, structure and serendipity, in Härke, H. (ed.), Archaeology, ideology and society. The German experience, Frankfurt am Main (Gesellschaften und Staaten im Epochenwandel 7), 375–97.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P., 1967: Postface, in Panofsky, E., Architecture gothique et pensée scolastique, Paris, 133–67.Google Scholar
Collet, D., 2012: ‘Vulnerabilität’ als Brückenkonzept der Hungerforschung, in Collet, D., Lassen, T. and Schanbacher, A. (eds), Handeln in Hungerkrisen. Neue Perspektiven auf soziale und klimatische Vulnerabilität, Göttingen, 13–25.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G. 2014: Dispositif (apparatus), in Lawlor, L. and Nale, J. (eds), The Cambridge Foucault lexicon, New York, 126–32.Google Scholar
Dilthey, W., 1883: Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften. Versuch einer Grundlegung für das Studium der Gesellschaft und der Geschichte, Vol. 1, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Eco, U., 2003a: Dire quasi la stessa cosa. Esperienze di traduzione, Milan.Google Scholar
Eco, U., 2003b: Mouse or rat? Translation as negotiation, London.Google Scholar
Fischer-Kowalski, M., and Erb, K., 2006: Epistemologische und konzeptionelle Grundlagen der sozialen Ökologie, Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft 148, 33–56.Google Scholar
Foucault, M., 1971: L'ordre du discours, Paris.Google Scholar
Gábor Győri, G., 2000: Semantic change as linguistic interpretation of the world, in Niermeier, S. and Dirven, R. (eds), Evidence for linguistic relativity, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 71–89.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J.J., and Levinson, S.C., 1996: Introduction. Linguistic relativity re-examined, in Gumperz, J.J. and Levinson, S.C. (eds), Rethinking linguistic relativity, Cambridge (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 17), 1–17.Google Scholar
Hill, J.H., and Mannheim, B., 1992: Language and world view, Annual reviews in anthropology 21, 381–406.Google Scholar
Johnson, M., 2012: Landscape studies. The future of the field, in Kluiving, S.J. and Guttmann-Bond, E.B. (eds), Landscape archaeology between art and science. From a multi- to an interdisciplinary approach, Amsterdam, 515–25.Google Scholar
Koselleck, R., 1972: Über die Theoriebedürftigkeit der Geschichtswissenschaft, in Conze, W. (ed.), Theorie der Geschichtswissenschaft und Praxis des Geschichtsunterrichts, Stuttgart, 10–28.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K., 2001: Borders of ignorance. Research communities and language, in Kobyliński, Z. (ed.), Quo vadis archaeologia? Whither European archaeology in the 21st century?, Warsaw (Workshop Mądralin), 38–44.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K., Cornell, K. and Larsson, L. (eds), 2004: Arkeologins referensvärld: Analyser av referenskonventioner inom arkeologi och kulturminnesvård, Göteborg (Gotarc Series C 53).Google Scholar
Lang, V., 2000: Archaeology and language, Fennoscandia archaeologica 16, 103–10.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N., 1997: Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N., 2004: Einführung in die Systemtheorie, Heidelberg, 2nd edn. Google Scholar
Mante, G., 2011: Some notes on the German love–hate relationship with Anglo-American theoretical archaeology, in Gramsch, A. and Sommer, U. (eds), A history of central European archaeology. Theory, methods, and politics, Budapest (Archaeolingua Series Minor 30), 107–24.Google Scholar
Meier, T., and Tillessen, P., 2014: Archaeological imaginations of religion. An introduction from an Anglo-German perspective, in Meier, T. and Tillessen, P. (eds), Archaeological imaginations of religion, Budapest, 11–247.Google Scholar
Mittelstraß, J., 1991: Geist, Natur und die Liebe zum Dualismus. Wider den Mythos von zwei Kulturen, in Bachmaier, Helmut and Fischer, Ernst Peter (eds), Glanz und Elend der zwei Kulturen. Über die Verträglichkeit der Natur- und Geisteswissenschaften, Konstanz (Konstanzer Bibliothek 16), 9–28.Google Scholar
Mittelstraß, J., 1999: Krise und Zukunft der Geisteswissenschaften, in Reinalter, H. (ed.), Natur- und Geisteswissenschaften. Zwei Kulturen?, Innsbruck, Vienna and Munich (Arbeitskreis Wissenschaft und Verantwortlichkeit 4), 55–79.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 2007: The archaeology of ritual, of cult, and of religion, in Kyriakidis, E. (ed.), The archaeology of ritual, Los Angeles (Cotsen Advanced Seminars 3), 109–22.Google Scholar
Snow, C.P., 1961: The two cultures and the scientific revolution, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Welsch, W., 1996: Vernunft . Die zeitgenössische Vernunftkritik und das Konzept der transversalen Vernunft, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Whorf, B.L., 1956: Language, thought and reality, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Zierhofer, W., 2003: Natur – das andere der Kultur? Konturen einer nicht-essentialistischen Geographie, in Gebhardt, H., Reuber, P. and Wolkersdorfer, G. (eds), Kulturgeographie. Aktuelle Ansätze und Entwicklungen, Heidelberg and Berlin, 193–212.Google Scholar