Langue de l’archéologie II
ou: comment j’ai survecu au changement de paradigme
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v4i1.6Mots-clés :
changement de paradigme, théorie en archéologie, historico-culturel, approche processualiste et postprocessualiste, position du chercheurRésumé
L’article représente une rétrospective critique auto-réflexive des textes antérieurs de l’auteur ayant pour thème les théories archéologiques. Les imperfections des premiers textes sont considérées en rapport avec l’attitude dominante de la communauté disciplinaire locale à l’époque de la publication. L’archéologie en Serbie n’est pas impliquée dans les discussions théoriques fondamentales, ce pourquoi les efforts individuels de changer cet état de choses ne visaent qu’à présenter l’essentiel des études en cours. Etant donné que les deux principaux paradigmes de la discipline – processualiste et postprocessualiste, – formulés dans leur entourage originel au cours d’une période de presque trois décennies, ont été présentés simultanément, l’on a assisté à leur "chevauchement".
Téléchargements
Références
Babić, S. 1992. Jezik arheologije (The Language of Archaeology), Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva 8, 114 – 118.
Babić, S. 1993. Arheologija i antropologija (Archaeology and Anthropology), Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva 9, 143 – 147.
Babić, S. 2002. Still innocent after all these years? Sketches for a social history of archaeology in Serbia. Archäologien Europas: Geschihte, Methoden und Theorien/Archaeologies of Europe: History, Methods and Theories, Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher 3, 309 – 322.
Babić, S. 2004. Poglavarstvo i polis: Starije gvozdeno doba Centralnog Balkana i grčki svet, Beograd: Balkanološki institut SANU.
Babić, S. 2006. Archaeology in Serbia – A Way Forward? Homage to Milutin Garašanin, N. Tasić, C. Grozdanov (eds.), Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, 655 – 659.
Babić, S. 2008. Grci i drugi – Antička percepcija i percepcija antike, Beograd: Klio
Biehl, P, A. Gramsch & A. Marciniak (eds). 2002. Archäologien Europas: Geschihte, Methoden und Theorien/Archaeologies of Europe: History, Methods and Theories, Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher 3.
Binford, L. R. 1962. Archaeology as Anthropology, American Antiquity 28, 217 – 225.
Binford, L. R. 1983. In Pursuit of the Past. Decoding the Archaeological Record, London, New York: Thames & Hudson.
Bourdieu, P. 1988. Homo Academicus, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Clarke, D. L. 1968. Analytical Archaeology, London: Methuen.
Cčarke, D. L. 1973. Archaeology: the loss of innocence, Antiquity vol. 47, 1973, 6 – 15.
Džonson, M. 2008. Uvod u arheološku teoriju, Beograd: Klio.
Golden M. & P. Toohey (eds). 1997. Inventing Ancient Culture – Historicism, periodization, and the ancient world, London, New York: Routledge.
Hamilakis, Y. 2007. The Nation and its Ruins. Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hodder, I. 1986. Reading the past. Current approaches to interpretation in archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hodder, I. 1999. The Archaeological Process. An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell
Hodder, I. (ed.). 1991. Archaeological theory in Europe – the last three decades, London, New York: Routledge.
Humphreys, S.C. 2002. Classics and Colonialism: Towards an Erotics of the Discipline, Disciplining Classics, G. W. Most (ed.), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 207 – 251.
Kun, T. 1974. Struktura naučnih revolucija, Beograd: Nolit.
McGuire, R. 1992. A Marxist Archaeology, Orlando: Academic Press.
Morley, N. 2009. Antiquity and Modernity, Oxford: Wiley-Blacwell.
Morris, I. 1994. Archaeologies of Greece, Classical Greece – Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, I. Morris (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 8 – 47
Morris, I. 2000. Archaeology as Cultural History, Oxford: Blackwell.
Morris, I. (ed.). 1994. Classical Greece – Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nortwick, T. van 1997. Who do I think I am? Compromising Traditions – The Personal Voice in Classical Scholarship, J. P. Hallet & T. van Nortwick (eds), London, New York: Routledge, 16 – 24.
Nortwick, T. van 1997b. Conclusion. What is classical scholarship for, Compromising Traditions – The Personal Voice in Classical Scholarship, J. P. Hallet & T. van Nortwick (eds), London, New York: Routledge, 182 – 190.
Olsen, B. 2002. Od predmeta do teksta. Teorijske perspektive arheoloških istraživanja, Beograd: Geopoetika.
Palavestra, A. 2009. Structuralism en archeologie, Etnoantropološki problemi God. 4. Br. 2. (in press)
Preucel, R. & I. Hodder (eds). 1996. Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, Oxford: Blackwell
Radhakrishnan, R. 2003. Theory in an Uneven World, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
Settis, S. 2006. The Future of the Classical, Cambridge: Polity Press. Shanks, M.1996 – Classical Archaeology of Greece - Experiences of the Discipline, London, New York: Routledge Shanks, M. & C. Tilley. 1987. Re-constructing Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Snodgrass, A. M. 2002. A Paradigm Shift in Classical Archaeology? Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12, 179 – 193.
Spasić, I. 2005. Prevoditi i pisati sociologiju, Mostovi 131-132, 168 – 178.
Thomas, J. 2004. Archaeology and Modernity, London, New York: Routledge
Tilley, C. 1989. Archaeology as socio-political action in the present, Critical traditions in contemporary archaeology, V. Pinsky, A.Wylie (eds), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 104 – 116.
Téléchargements
Publiée
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
Ce travail est disponible sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International.
ERIH PLUS - European Reference Index for the Humanities
World Cat
AnthroSerbia
