It's not culture's fault. Problems of one premise
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2013 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | Anthropologie : [international journal of the science of man] |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Field | Archaeology, anthropology, ethnology |
| Keywords | Central European Archaeology; archaeological culture; ideology; space; imaginary entity; empirical approach |
| Attached files | |
| Description | "Archaeological cultures" are models of human life in a particular time and space, which come out of the scientific and social mores at the time of their definition. These well-constructed typological-chronological schemes are very stable but imaginary entities. The traits, with which cultures were originally described and with which their quantity and ubiquity were studied (burial rituals, the character of settlements, artefacts, space) have often been influenced by signs from the present. The assigning of cultures was influenced by state borders and even ideologies. The pigeon-holing of assemblages/localities to one or another culture has often been done mechanically, without in-depth analysis. The attempt to define borders leads to the division of culturally joined spaces. Questions (Fragestellung) and methods of the culture-historic paradigm frequently remain inherent in the primary data, which is analysed through the new procedures and complemented with modern scientific topics. We do not consider the term "archaeological culture" problematic in and of itself. We do, however, have an issue with the use of this concept, where instead of an abstract model, which "archaeological culture" is, we create out of an "archaeological culture", genuinely existing entity |
| Related projects: |