Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:59:36.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Steps towards understanding medieval urban communities as social practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2015

Ulrich Müller
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The contribution by Axel Christophersen aims to present new perspectives for the archaeology of medieval and post-medieval towns. In enlisting ‘social-practice theory’, the author would like to view the town as a dynamic, ever-changing network of social and cultural practices which is registered in the archaeological data. This perspective on the town lies, therefore, somewhere between structure-centred and agent-centred approaches. As such, Axel Christophersen's contribution can be seen as more comprehensive. I assess the piece also as a programmatic contribution to the development of theory in the apparently long-term conflict between ‘processual and postprocessual archaeology’. It should be said in advance that he was successful in this. At the same time, however, his contribution makes it clear that it is not easy to transfer or apply current cultural-studies concepts to historical periods and the materiality of archaeological data.

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , December 2015 , pp. 141 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Blomkvist, N., 2001: The concept of the town and the dawn of urban life east and west of the Baltic. On the emergence of centres, turn-over places, towns and cities, in Auns, M. (ed.), Lübeck style? Novgorod style? Baltic Rim central places as arenas for cultural encounters and urbanisation 1100–1400 AD, Riga, 11–35.Google Scholar
Geertz, C., 2014: Thick description. Toward an interpretive theory of culture, in Moore, H.L. and Sanders, T. (eds), Anthropology in theory. Issues in epistemology, Chichester, 166–72.Google Scholar
Schäfer, H., 2013: Die Instabilität der Praxis. Reproduktion und Transformation des Sozialen in der Praxistheorie, Weilerswist.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T., 1996: Social practices. A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social, Cambridge, New York and Melbourne.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T., 2009: Timespace and the organization of social life, in Shove, E., Trentmann, F. and Wiik, R. (eds), Time, consumption and everyday life. Practice, materiality and culture, London, New Dehli, New York and Sydney, 35–48.Google Scholar
Schulz-Schaeffer, I., 2010: Praxis, handlungstheoretisch betrachtet, Zeitschrift für Soziologie 3, 319–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shove, E., Pantzar, M. and Watson, M., 2012: The dynamics of social practice. Everyday life and how it changes, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springs, J.A., 2008: What cultural theorists of religion have to learn from Wittgenstein. Or, how to read Geertz as a practice theorist. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volbers, J., 2014: Performative Kultur. Eine Einführung, Wiesbaden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, M., 2003: Kritische Neubeschreibung. Michel Foucaults Beitrag zu einer kritischen Theorie sozialer Praxis, Dialektik. Zeitschrift für Kulturphilosophie 2, 27–50.Google Scholar