Archaeology in a Middle Country

  • Silvia Tomášková


In an effort to join the circles of European prehistorians, scholars in the early twentieth century Czechoslovakia had to make their work known, recognized, and comparable. The question I wish to pose is what strategies – narrative, political, institutional – did they use to achieve that goal? Which networks were deemed as crucial and central to the effort of establishing a new field in a newly formed country? What language was the lingua franca for archaeologists of the day? And finally how did those networks, languages, and citation practices change over the twentieth century?


Stone Tool Archaeological Research Archaeological Material Archaeological Community German Tradition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abdi, Kamyar. 2001. Nationalism, politics, and the development of archaeology in Iran, American Journal of Archaeology 105(1): 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Absolon, K. 1925. A discovery as wonderful as that of Tutenkhamen’s Tomb. Moravia over 20,000 years ago, Illustrated London News 31 October 1925.Google Scholar
  3. Bericht über die paläolithische Abteilung am mährischen Landes-Museum und die paläolithische Forschung in Mahren, Casopis Moravskeho Zemskeho Muzea 24(11): pp. 1–59.Google Scholar
  4. Une nouvelle et importante station Aurignacienne en Moravie, Revue Anthropologique 27: 73–88.Google Scholar
  5. Über die große Aurignacian-Station bei Unter-Wisternitz in Mahren, Tagungsberichte der deutschen Anthropologischen Gesellschaft, Bericht Fiber die 49. Versammlung in Köln. 49: 57–61.Google Scholar
  6. An amazing Paleolithic ‘Pompeii’ in Moravia – Parts I, II, III, Illustrated London News 23 November 1929, 30 November 1929, 14 December 1929.Google Scholar
  7. Abu El-Haj, N. 2001. Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Behrens, H. 1984. Die Ur-und Frühgeschichtswissenschaft in der DDR von 1945–1980. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  9. Böhm, J. 1949. Význam výzkumu v r. 1948, Archeologické Rozhledy 1: 7–10.Google Scholar
  10. Bugge, P. 1999. The use of the middle: Mitteleuropa vs. Střední Evropa, European Review of History 6(1): 15–34.Google Scholar
  11. Collis, J. R. 1995. Celts, power and politics: whither Czech archaeology? In M. Kuna and N. Venclová (eds.) Whither Archaeology? Papers in Honour of Evžen Neustupný. Prague, Institute of Archaeology, pp. 82–92.Google Scholar
  12. Conklin, A. 2002. Civil Society, Science, and Empire in Late Republican France: The Foundation of Paris’s Museum of Man, Osiris, 2nd Series, Vol. 17, Science and Civil Society, pp. 255–290.Google Scholar
  13. Daston, L. and P. Galison. 1992. The image of objectivity. Representations 40: 81–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Díaz-Andreu, M. and T. Champion. (eds.) 1996. Archaeology and Nationalism in Europe. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  15. Díaz-Andreu, M. and M. L. S. Sørensen. (eds.) 1998. Excavating Women. A History of Women in European Archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Dommasnes, L. H. 1992. Two decades of women in prehistory and in archaeology in Norway. A review. Norwegian Archaeological Review 25/1: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dietler, Michael. 1994. “Our ancestors the Gauls”: archaeology, ethnic nationalism, and the manipulation of Celtic identity in modern Europe, American Anthropologist, New Series 96(3): 584–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Filip, J. 1957. Archeologie a historie, Archeologicke Rozhledy 9(4): 561–566.Google Scholar
  19. Gero, J. M. 1990. Facts and values in the archaeological eye, in Nelson, S. and A. Kehoe (eds.) Powers of Observation: Alternative Views in Archaeology. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, no. 2, pp. 113–119.Google Scholar
  20. Gero, J. M. and M. W. Conkey. (eds.) 1991. Engendering Archaeology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Gero, J. M., D. M. Lacy and M. L. Blakey. (eds.) 1983. The Socio-Politics of Archaeology. Amherst: Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Research report no. 23.Google Scholar
  22. Graus, F. 1957. O pomĕr mezi archeologií a historií: K výkladu nožú na slovanskych pohřebištích, Archaeologické Rozhledy 9(4): 535–553.Google Scholar
  23. Härke, H. 1991. All quiet on the Western front? Paradigms, methods and approaches in West German archaeology, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Archaeological Theory in Europe: The Last Three Decades. London: Routledge, pp. 187–222.Google Scholar
  24. Härke, H. (ed.) 2000. Archaeology, Ideology and Society: The German Experience. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  25. Hecht, J. M. 2003. The End of the Soul. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Immonen, V. 2003. The stratigraphy of a life. An archaeological dialogue with Leo Klejn. Archaeological Dialogues 10: 57–75.Google Scholar
  27. International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences: Meeting of the Permanent Council at Oxford, 12–15 April, 1946, Man 46: 74–80.Google Scholar
  28. King, Jeremy. 2002. Budweisers into Czechs and Germans: A Local History of Bohemian Politics, 1848–1948. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kohl, P. and C. Fawcett. 1995. Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Layton, R. (ed.) 1989. Who Needs the Past: Indigenous Values and Archaeology. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  31. Lewis-Williams, J. D. 1993. Southern African Archaeology in the 1990s, The South African Archaeological Bulletin 48(157): 45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lowenthal, D. 1985. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lynch, M. 1985. Discipline and the material form of images: an analysis of scientific visibility, Social Studies of Science 15(1): 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lynch, M. and S. Woolgar. (eds.) 1990. Representation in Scientific Practice. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  35. Madsen, T. 1995. Archaeology between facts and fiction: the need for an explicit methodology, in Kuna, M. and N. Venclova (eds.) Whither Archaeology: Papers in Honor of Evžen Neustupný. Praha: Institute of Archaeology, pp. 13–23.Google Scholar
  36. Mante, G. 2004. Die deutschsprachige prähistorische Archäologie: Eine Ideengeschichte im Zeichen von Wissenschaft, Politik und europäischen Werten. Berlin: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  37. McGuire, R. and R. Paynter. (eds.) 1991. The Archaeology of Inequality. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  38. Meskell, L. (ed.) 1998. Archaeology Under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. The Intersections of identity and politics in archaeology, Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 279–301.Google Scholar
  40. Milisauskas, S. 1997. Archaeology in the Soviet bloc, American Anthropologist 99(2): 390–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mitchell, Peter J. 1998. The South African stone age in the collections of the British museum: content, history and significance, The South African Archaeological Bulletin 53(167): 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moser, S. 1998. Ancestral Images: The Iconography of Human Origins. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Narr, K. J. 1990. Nach der nationalen Vorgeschichte, in Prinz, W. and P. Weingart (eds.) Die sog. Geisteswissenschaften: Innenansichten. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 279–305.Google Scholar
  44. Nestupný, E. 1991. Recent theoretical achievements in prehistoric archaeology in Czechoslovakia, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Archaeological Theory in Europe: The Last Three Decades. New York: Routledge, pp. 248–271.Google Scholar
  45. Czechoslovakia: the last three years, Antiquity 67: 129–134.Google Scholar
  46. Nolan, M. 1996. Antifascism under Fascism: German Visions and Voices. New German Critique, No. 67, Legacies of Antifascism, pp. 33–55.Google Scholar
  47. Notes and News. 1938. American Anthropologist, New Series 40(2): 345–347.Google Scholar
  48. O’Connor, Anne. 2007. Finding Time for the Old Stone Age: A History of Palaeolithic Archaeology and Quaternary Geology in Britain, 1860–1960. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Patterson, T. C. 1996. Conceptual differences between Mexican and Peruvian archaeology, American Anthropologist, New Series 98(3) (Sep. 1996): 499–505.Google Scholar
  50. Politis, G. and J. A. Perez Gollan. 2004. Latin America archaeology: from colonialism to globalization, in Preucel, R. and L. Meskell (eds.) Blackwell Companion for Social Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  51. Prestwich, J. 1860. On the occurrence of flint-implements, associated with the remains of animals of extinct species in beds of a late geological period, in France at Amiens and Abbeville, and in England at Hoxne, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 150: 277–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pyenson, L. 1989. What is the good of history of science? History of Science 27: 353–389.Google Scholar
  53. Rowley-Conwy, P. 2007. From Genesis to Prehistory: the Archaeological Three Age System and its Contested Reception in Denmark, Britain, and Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Schlanger, N. 2002. Ancestral archives: explorations in the history of archaeology. Antiquity 76(291): 127–131.Google Scholar
  55. Shanks M. and C. Tilley. 1987. Reconstructing archaeology: theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Shanks, M. 1997. Photography and archaeology, in Molyneaux, B. L. (ed.) The Cultural Life of Images. London: Routledge, pp. 73–107Google Scholar
  57. Shepherd, N. 2002. The politics of archaeology in Africa, Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. ‘When the hand that holds the trowel is black …’ Disciplinary practices of self-representation and the issue of ‘native’ labour in archaeology. Journal of Social Archaeology 3(3): 334–352.Google Scholar
  59. Archaeology dreaming. Post-apartheid urban imaginaries and the bones of the Prestwich Street dead, Journal of Social Archaeology 7(1): 3–28.Google Scholar
  60. Tomášková, S. 1995. A Site in History, Dolní Vĕstonice/Unterwisternitz. Antiquity 69/263: 301–316.Google Scholar
  61. Trigger, B. 1984. Alternative archaeologies: nationalist, colonialist, imperialist, Man 19: 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Tucker, J. 2006. The historian, the picture, and the archive. Isis 97: 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Reybrouck, D. 2002. Boule’s error: on the social context of scientific knowledge. Antiquity 76: 158–164.Google Scholar
  65. Wolff, L. 1994. Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Zotz, L. 1940. Ist Böhmen-Mähren die Urheimat der Tschechen? Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth.Google Scholar
  67. Von den Mammutjagern zu den Wikingern: Ergebnisse und Aufgaben der böhmisch-mährischen Vorgeschichtskunde. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anthropology and Department of Women’s StudiesUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations