Acasă Articole RTR Arheologia secolului XX. Naţionalism, Marxism şi Feminism

Arheologia secolului XX. Naţionalism, Marxism şi Feminism

465
Rezumat

20th Century Archaeology. Nationalism, Marxism and Feminism

Nationalism and Archaeology. In the last years of 20th century one issue of world’s politics was the concept of nationalism, in other words, the development of the nationalist ideologies. As a result, Archaeology confronted with this issue as well and along the years there have been noticed a series of nationalist concepts. Kühnl claims that no historical presentation or thesis can be purely scientific. He argues that all discourses, speeches,  concepts imply a certain political orientation, so the archaeological analysis may not be the exception as it cannot avoid the orientation towards a particular political concept. The relation between archaeology and nationalism has become more evident in the first half of the 20th century in particularly after the WWI gradually loosing its importance in Western Europe after WW II.
The Marxism and its Influence on Historical Research. Our purpose is to identify and analyse the influences of Marxist doctrine in history and archaeological researches. In the classical Marxism the change is explained through the interaction between the production and exchange forces. Nowadays, this idea may be rejected by the followers of the so-called post Marxism both in Europe and America. They consider that the Marxism is a valuable concept only in relation with the new social and anthropological theories of Structuralism or Relativism. Some historiographers consider that the archaeologists Roskams and Saunders were significantly influenced by the Marxist-Leninist ideas. In Dark’s opinion, Ian Hodder (1986, 1992) or even G. Childe (1949) may be included in the category of archaeologists influenced by post-Marxist ideas; in their researches, the classic theory is associated with the Relativism and Structuralism offering plausible explanations for the cultural changes in the world. The Annals School historiography has several common ideas with Marxism. Guy Bois analysed and identified at least three common aspects:
a) the indirect and confusing influence of Marxism on the new history by means of economic aspects, a method specific to Ernest Labrousse;
b) the influence of the new history on the Marxist historians generating several themes of research such as the history of sensitivity and mass lines of thoughts;
c) the Marxist historians who assimilated the methods of research. In the archaeology of the ex-communist countries Marxism has had two main influences:
a) the ideological one: by focusing on the social and economic aspects in the archaeological research; the “barbarian” one by forcing the historians to refer to works of the Marxist classics in their collections of history studies.
Feminism and Archaeological Research. There are many aspects of feminism in archaeology that are worth to be discussed. In ‘60s and ‘70s of the last century, the feminism brought in archaeology a new method of perceiving the reality through the artefacts that have been discovered, thus the areas of a settlement could have been divided into areas with male or female features. While doing an archaeological analysis of a settlement dating from the Iron Age at Glastonbury, David Clarke made a distinction between the large and small houses, he assumed that the former ones belonged to more male activities and the latter ones to feminine activities as they were mostly domestic objects. Statistics show that at global level there is a percent of 25-30 % women archaeologists and according to Gilchrist’s the situation is the following: in USA approx. 20%, in England and Australia approx 35% and in Norway 49%.
Keywords: Archaeology, Nationalism, Marxism, Feminism, 20th Century, România

Bibliografie
  • ***, Istoria românilor, Vol. III, Bucureşti, 2001.
    http://arh.cimec.ro/RegistruArheologi.aspx.
  • ARCIKHOVSKII, A. V., Vvdenie v arkheologiiu,
    Moscow, 1940.
  • ARIES, Ph., DUBY, G. (coord.), Istoria vieţii private,
    Bucureşti, 1-10, 1994-1998.
    ARNOLD, Bettina, HASSMANN, H., Archaeology
    in Nazi Germany: the Legacy of Faustian Bargain, în: Ph.
    KOHL, Clare FAWCETT, Nationalism, politics, and the
    practice of archaeology, Cambridge, 2005.
  • BAILEY, D. W., Bulgarian archaeology: Ideology,
    sociopolitics and the exotic, în: Archaeology under Fire:
    Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern
    Mediterranean and Middle East, ed. Lynn MESKELL,
    London, New York, 1998.
  • BALTAG, Gh., Sighişoara. Elemente de demografie şi
    habitat în bazinul mijlociu al Târnavei Mari din preistorie
    până în secolul al XIII-lea d. Hr., cu privire specială asupra
    zonei municipiului Sighişoara, Bucureşti, 2000.
  • BARFORD, P., Paradigms lost: Polish archaeology and
    post-war politics, în: Archaeologia Polona, 31, 1993, p. 257-
    270;
  • BOIS, G., Marxisme et histoire nouvelle, în: La Nouvelle
    Histoire, p. 261.
    BRATHER, S., Die Projektion des Nationalstaats in die
    Frühgeschichte. Ethnische Interpretationen in der
    Archäologie, în: Inventing the Past in North Central Europe.
    The National perception of Early Medieval History and
    Archaeology.
  • BREZEANU , S., Identităţi şi solidarităţi medievale.
    Controverse istorice, Bucureşti, 2002.
    CURTA, Fl., Apariţia slavilor. Istorie şi arheologie la
    Dunărea de Jos în veacurile VI-VII, Editura Cetatea de
    Scaun, Târgovişte, 2006.
  • CURTA, Fl., Early Middle Ages: Problems of
    Chronology, în: Fl. CURTA ed., East Central and Eastern
    Europe in the Early Middle Ages, The University of
    Michigan Press, Ann Harbor, 2005.
  • CURTA, Fl., Fl. CURTA ed., East Central and
    Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages, The University of
    Michigan Press, Ann Harbor, 2005.
  • DARK, K. R., Theoretical archaeology , London, 1995.
  • DIAZ-ANDREU, Margarita, Archaeology and
    nationalism in Spain, în: Ph. KOHL, Clare FAWCETT,
    Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology,
    Cambridge, 2005.
  • DIAZ-ANDREU, Margarita, CHAMPION,
    Timothy, Nationalism and archaeology in Europe, London,
    1996.
  • DIAZ-ANDREU, Margarita, STIG SŘRENSEN,
    Marie Louise, Excavating women. A history of women in
    european archaeology, London, New York, 1996.
  • DUBY, G., Cavalerul, femeia şi preotul. Căsătoria în
    Franţa feudală, Bucureşti, 1997;
  • DUBY, G., Doamnele din veacul al XII-lea, Bucureşti,
    2000;
  • GANE, C., Trecute vieţi de doamne şi domniţe, Ia?i,
    1972.
  • GILCHRIST, Roberta, Gender and Archaeology,
    London, 1999.
  • GOFF, J. le (coord.), Omul medieval, Polirom, 1999;
  • GUŠTIN, M. (red.), Zgodni slovani.
    Zgodnjesrednjeveska lančenina na obrobju vzhodnih Alp,
    Ljubljana, 2002.
  • HARDT, M., LÜBKE, Ch., SCHORKOWITZ, D.,
    Inventing the Past in North Central Europe. The National
    perception of Early Medieval History and Archaeology,
    Berna, 2003.
  • HELMIG, G., SCHOLKMANN, Barbara,
    UNTERMANN, M. (eds.), Centre. Region. Periphery –
    Medieval Europe Basel 2002, II, Hertingen, 2002.
  • HODDER, I. (ed.), Archaeological Theory in Europe,
    London, New York, 1991.
  • IAMBOR, P., Aşezări fortificate din Transilvania (sec.
    IX-XIII), Cluj -Napoca , 2005.
  • KAISER, T., Archaeology and Ideology in Southeast
    Europe, în: Ph. L. KOHL, Clare FAWCETT,
    Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology,
    Cambridge , 2005.
  • KOBYLIŃSKI, Z., Theoretical orientations in
    archaeology in Poland (1945-1995), în: Theory and Practice
    of Archaeological Research, ed. W. HENSEL, St.
    TABACYŃSKI, P. URBAŃCZYK, 3, Warsaw, 1998, p.
    225-258.
  • KOHL, Philip L., FAWCETT, Clare, Nationalism,
    politics, and the practice of archaeology, Cambridge, 2005.
  • KOHL, Philip L. , Nationalism and Archaeology: On
    the Constructions of Nations and the Reconstructions of the
    Remote Past, în: Annual Review of Anthropology, 27, 1998.
  • KRISTIANSEN, K., National Archaeology in the Age
    of European Integration, în: Antiquity, 64, p. 835-839.
  • KRISTIANSEN, K., The Strength of the Past and its
    Great Might, an Essay on the use of the Past, în: Journal
    European of Archaeology, 1, 1993, p.3-33.
  • LÁSZLOVSKY, J., SIKLÓDI, Cs., Archaeological
    theory in Hungary since 1960: Theories without theoretical
    archaeology, în: Archaeological Theory in Europe, ed. I.
    Hodder, London, New York, 1991, p. 272-298.
  • LECH, J., Between Captivity and Freedom: Polish
    Archaeology in the 20th Century, în: Archaeologia Polona,
    35-36, 1997-1998.
  • Lynn MESKELL (ed.), Archaeology under Fire:
    Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern
    Mediterranean and Middle East, London, New York, 1998.
  • MADGEARU, Al. , Continuitate şi discontinuitate
    culturală la Dunărea de Jos în secolele VII-VIII, Bucureşti,
    1997.
  • MICLEA, I., FLORESCU, R., Geto-dacii: strămoşii
    românilor. Vestigii milenare de cultură culturăşi artă,
    Bucureşti, 1980
  • MILISAUKAS, S., Observations on Polish archaeology,
    1945-1995, în: Archaeologia Polona, 35-36, 1997-1998, p.
    223-236;
  • ONCIUL, D., Scrieri istorice, ed. de A. Sacerdoţeanu,
    2 vol., Bucureşti, 1968.
  • PANZER, B., Quellen zur slawischen Ethnogenese.
    Fakten, Mythen und legenden (originaltexte mit
    Übersetzungen, Erläuterungen und Kommnetaren),
    Frankfurt am Main, 2002
  • PASCU, Şt., Voievodatul Transilvaniei, I, Cluj , 1972.
  • PATTERSON, T.C., Toward a Social History of
    Archaeology in the United States, Orlando, 1995.
  • POPA, R., Observaţii şi îndreptări la istoria României
    în jurul anului 1000, în SCIVA, 1991.
  • SCHORKOWITZ, D., Rekonstruktionen des
    nationalen im postsowjetischen Raum. Beobachtungen zur
    Permanenz des Historischen, în: HARDT, M., LÜBKE,
    Ch., SCHORKOWITZ, D., Inventing the Past in North
    Central Europe. The National perception of Early Medieval
    History and Archaeology, Berna, 2003.
  • STANCIU, I., Despre ceramica medievală timpurie de
    uz comun, lucrată la roata rapidă, în aşezările de pe
    teritoriul României (secolele VIII-X), în: Arheologia
    Medievală, III, 2000, p. 127-191.
  • STANCIU, I., MATEI, Al. V., Sondajele din aşezarea
    prefeudală de la Popeni-Cuceu, jud. Sălaj. Câteva
    consideraţii cu privire la ceramica prefeudală din
    Transilvania, în: Acta Musei Porolissensis, 18, 1994, p. 135-
    163.
  • STIG SORENSEN, Marie Louise, The Fall of a
    Nation, the Birth of a Subject: the National use of Archaelogy
    in Nineteenth-Century Denmark, în: Margarita DIAZANDREU,
    T. CHAMPION, Nationalism and
    archaeology in Europe, London, 1996.
  • TEODOR, E. S., About some Slavic Pottery from
    Slovenia, în: Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, 9, 2003.
  • TEODOR, E. S., O frontieră incertă a lumii romane.
    Câmpia Dunării de Jos în epoca lui Justinian, în: Cercetări
    arheologice, 12, 2003.
  • TEODOR, E. S., An update for „Ipoteşti-Cândeşti”
    culture, în: Zbornik na počest dariny Bialokovej, G. FUSEK
    (red.), Nitra, 2004.
  • TRIGGER, B. G., Alternative Archaeologies:
    Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist, în: MAN, 19, 1984.
  • TRIGGER, B.G., A History of Archaeological Thought,
    Cambridge, 1989.
  • TRIGGER, B.G., Romanticism, nationalism and
    archaeology, în: Ph. L. KOHL, Clare FAWCETT,
    Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology,
    Cambridge, 2005.
  • ŢIPLIC, I.M., Contribuţii la istoria spaţiului românesc
    în perioada migraţiilor şi evul mediu timpuriu, Institutul
    Europea, Iaşi, 2005.
  • ŢURCANU, I., Istoria. Receptare, cercetare,
    interpretare, Iaşi, Între Dumnezeu şi neamul meu, Ediţie
    îngrijită de Gabriel Klimowicz, Fundaţia Anastasia, 1992.
  • UCKO, P. J., Academic Freedom and Apartheid: The
    Story of the World Archaeological Congress, London, 1987.
  • URBAŃCZYK, P., Political circumstances reflected in
    post-war Polish Archaeology, în: Public Archaeology, 1,
    2000, 49-56;
  • WAILES, B., ZOLL, Amy L., Civilization, Barbarism
    and Nationalism in European Archaeology, în: Ph. Kohl, C.
    Fawcett, Nationalism, politics, and the practice of
    archaeology, Cambridge, 2005.
  • XENOPOL, A. D., Teoria lui Roesler. Studii asupra
    stăruinţei românilor în Dacia Traiană, 1884.
DISTRIBUIȚI