No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
Kerstin Hofmann and Philipp Stockhammer's essay on theory in ‘Beyond antiquarianism’ displays a mood that lacks self-confidence, despite a more optimistic outlook on theoretical reflections in their field than an earlier paper by Ulrike Sommer (2000b). The citations, amounting to 60 per cent of the text, are just an outward sign of that mood. A more revealing element is the essay's framing. Hofmann and Stockhammer do not discuss theory in German-speaking archaeology, as their abbreviation ‘GSA’ seems to imply, but rather restrict themselves to its prehistoric subdivision: the essay is actually only about ‘GSPA’. What are the preconditions for and the consequences of this self-imposed disciplinary (and disciplining) restriction?
- Type
- Discussion
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017
References
Agamben, G., 1998: Homo sacer. Sovereign power and bare life, tr. Heller-Roazen, Daniel, Stanford.Google Scholar
Altekamp, S., 2004: Das archäologische Gedächtnis, in K. Ebeling and S. Altekamp (eds), Die Aktualität des Archäologischen in Wissenschaft, Medien und Künsten, Frankfurt am Main, 211–32.Google Scholar
Assmann, J., 1992: Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. Munich.Google Scholar
Bernbeck, R., 2009a: Class conflict in ancient Mesopotamia. Between knowledge of history and historicising knowledge, Anthropology of the Middle East
4
(1), 33–64.Google Scholar
Hahn, H.P., 2015: Der Eigensinn der Dinge. Einleitung, in Hahn, H.P. (ed), Vom Eigensinn der Dinge. Für eine neue Perspektive auf die Welt des Materiellen, Berlin, 9–56.Google Scholar
Honneth, A., 2003: Unsichtbarkeit. Stationen einer Theorie der Intersubjektivität, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Honneth, A., 2014: Verdinglichung. Eine anerkennungstheoretische Studie, 2nd edn, with commentaries, Berlin.Google Scholar
Laclau, E., and Mouffe, C., 1985: Hegemony and socialist strategy. Towards a radical democratic politics, London.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1991: Nous n'avons jamais été modernes. Essai d'anthropologie symétrique, Paris.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1999: Politiques de la nature. Comment faire entrer les sciences en démocratie, Paris.Google Scholar
Ludwig, A., 2015: Geschichte ohne Dinge? Materielle Kultur zwischen Beiläufigkeit und Quelle, Historische Anthropologie
23
(3), 431–45.Google Scholar
Niethammer, L., 2000: Kollektive Identität. Heimliche Quellen einer unheimlichen Konjunktur, Reinbek b. Hamburg.Google Scholar
Pollock, S., 2007: The royal cemetery of Ur. Ritual, tradition, and the creation of subjects, in Heinz, M. and Feldman, M.H. (eds), Representations of political power. Case histories from times of change and dissolving order in the ancient Near East, Winona Lake, IN, 89–110.Google Scholar
Smith, A.T., 2004: The end of the essential archaeological subject, Archaeological dialogues
11
(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockhammer, P.W., Massy, K., Knipper, C., Friedrich, R., Kromer, B., Lindauer, S., Radosavljević, J., Wittenborn, F. and Krause, J., 2015: Rewriting the Central European Early Bronze Age chronology. Evidence from large-scale radiocarbon dating, PLoS ONE
10
(10), e0139705.Google Scholar
Winker, G., and Degeler, N., 2010: Intersektionalität. Zur Analyse sozialer Ungleichheiten, 2nd edn, Bielefeld.Google Scholar
Yoffee, N., and Sherratt, A. (eds), 1993: Archaeological theory. Who sets the agenda?, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar