The “German School of Archaeology” in its Central European Context: Sinful Thoughts (original) (raw)
Related papers
The theoretical work of the recognised German archaeologist Rolf Hachmann has largely been underestimated. From the 1940s onwards, Hachman dealt in depth with the concept of culture in archaeology, inspired by the British functionalism of Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown. This paper takes a close look at Hachmann’s def nitions of culture and history and analyses the operationalisation of his theoretical approaches in his evaluation of the Phoenician cemetery of Kamid el-Loz in Lebanon. Moreover, I evaluate the impact of New Archaeology on his work. Hachmann’s later work is dominated by cultural philosophy. Based on the dichotomy between norms and values, he differentiates f ve historical stages of human development, which might be considered to be an outdated evolutionist approach. Nevertheless, his ideas can be seen as an attempt to give archaeology social relevance by stating that archaeology as a part of history is meaningful for the understanding of human existence.
Th eory?' at the 2006 EAA meeting in Krakow I felt the need to argue from a perspective diff erent from theirs: that of an archaeologist socialised into the German tradition. Th is tradition is rooted fi rmly in a distinctive Central European Archaeology. Imagine a German archaeologist talking about the death of theory -would not that be anachronistic? Th ings obviously are more problematic and tangled where theory in Central European Archaeology is concerned. Th us, this paper will fi rst address the questions what 'Central European Archaeology' is supposed to mean, and how this particular way of doing archaeology is associated with or approaches theory. Th is, in turn, requires us to talk about what 'theory' does or may mean, and how it is related to practice. I will add some thoughts on refl exive approaches to theory/practice. What are current debates among Central European archaeologists revealing about attitudes towards both 'our real aims' and the methodologies that might be appropriate to achieve them? Before attempting theory's life in Central Europe we should ask: what is it that we ought to kill? Is theory alive at all?
This is an interview about archaeology in Germany and beyond. Friedrich Lüth, currently president of the European Association of Archaeologists, among other positions, talks about archaeological practice and thought in Germany and Europe and the relationship between both. Is German pre- and protohistoric archaeology still best known for its disciplined approaches to material evidence and the thoroughness with regard to the data (Härke 1989)? Are there still concerns whether it is atheoretical (Klejn 1993)? In this interview Lüth reflects on university chairs versus ‘schools’, we hear about how to gain new facts and how to deconstruct interpretations, and we learn about the sixteenfold German heritage management – archaeology is the competence of the sixteen Bundesländer (states) rather than of the Bund, because state archaeological services as well as the universities fall under the laws of the states, not under federal laws. Topics range from the Bologna process to Germany's attitude towards ‘world archaeology’, from positivism to plurality, and from budgets to languages. We also learn much about the self-perception of archaeology in Germany as a subject between data and theory, between humanities and sciences, and between knowledge production and public relevance.