Jezik arheologije II
ili: kako sam preživela promenu paradigme
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v4i1.6Ključne reči:
promena paradigme, teorija u arheologiji, kulturnoistorijski pristup, procesni pristup, postprocesni pristup, pozicija istraživačaApstrakt
Članak predstavlja auto-refleksivni kritički osvrt na autorove ranije tekstove na temu arheološke teorije. Nesavršenosti ranih tekstova posmatraju se u vezi sa preovlađujućim stavom lokalne disciplinarne zajednice u vreme objavljivanja. Arheologija u Srbiji nije uključena u ključne teorijske diskusije, te su pojedinačni napori da se ovo stanje promeni bili usmereni na predstavljanje suštine tekućih razmatranja. Kako su dve vodeće paradigme discipline – procesna i postprocesna, formulisane u svom originalnom okruženju tokom perioda od skoro tri decenije, bile predstavljene istovremeno, došlo je do njihovog „prelivanja“.
##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##
Reference
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.
##submission.downloads##
Objavljeno
Kako citirati
Broj časopisa
Sekcija
Licenca
Ovaj rad je pod Creative Commons Autorstvo-Deli pod istim uslovima 4.0 Internacionalna licenca.
ERIH PLUS - European Reference Index for the Humanities
World Cat
AnthroSerbia
