Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:45:56.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the international roots of prehistory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Marc-Antoine Kaeser
Marc-Antoine Kaeser*
Affiliation:
Swiss National Museum, Department of Archeology, Hardturmstr. 185, CH-8005 Zürich, Switzerland. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Introduction

In recent years, considerable attention has been dedicated to the involvement of archaeology (and most notably prehistory) with nationalism. The probable causes of this recent fashion1 need not concern 11s here, but the movement itself is ccrtninly welcome, testifying to the reflection of archaeologists on their own practices and those of their predecessors. For historians, this trend is quite welcome insofar as it contributes to a general renaissance of interest in the past of the discipline. However, a more careful examination of this historiography leads us to some caution about its significance.

Keywords

institutionalizationnationalismantiquarianismcultural evolutioninternational congrees of prehistoryarchiveshistory of archaeology
Type
Special section: Ancestral Archives: Explorations in the History of Archaeology
Information
Antiquity , Volume 76 , Issue 291 , March 2002 , pp. 170 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blanckaert, C. 1995. Fondements disciplinaires de l’anthropologie française au XIXe siède. Perspectives historiographiques, Politix 29: 31–54.Google Scholar
Chapman, W. R. 1989. Toward an institutional history of archaeology: British archaeologists and allied interests in the 1860s, in Christenson, A. T. (ed.), Tracing archaeology’s past. The historiography of archaeology: 151–62. Carbondale (IL): Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
Coye, N. 1997. La préhistoire en parole et en ade. Méthodcs et enjeux de la pratique archéologique, 1830–1950. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Díaz-Andreu, M. & Champion, T.. 1996, Nationalism and archaeology in Europe. London: University College London Press.Google Scholar
Gramsch, A. 1999. Scientific of political ‘reflexiveness’: archaeology, nationalism, and europeanism, European journal of Archaeology 2: 117–24.Google Scholar
Gramsch, A. 2000. ‘Reflexiveness’ in archaeology, nationalism, and Europeanism, Archaeological Dialogues 7: 4–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilakis, Y. 1996. Through the looking glass: nationalism, archaeology and the politics of identily, Antiquity 70: 975–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, M. 1980, Anthropology as a weapon of social combat in late-nineteenth-century France, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 16: 118–32.Google Scholar
Kaeser, M.-A. 2000a. Nationalisme et archéologie: quelle histoire?. Revue d’Histoire des Sciences Humaines 2: 155–62.Google Scholar
Kaeser, M.-A. 2000b. Talking about readings of the past: a delusive debate, Archaeological Dialogues 7: 35–7.Google Scholar
Kaeser, M.-A. 2001. L’internationalisation de la préhistoire, une manoeuvre tactique? Les conséquences épistémologiques de la fondation des Congròs internationaux d’anthropologie et d’archéologie préhistoriques, in Blanckaert, C. (ed.), Les politiques de l’anthropologie. Discours et pratiques en France (1860–1940): 201–30. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Kaeser, M.-A.Forthcoming. L’univers du préhistorien. Science, foi et politique dans l’oeuvre et la vie d’Edouard Desor (1811–1882). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Kohl, Ph.L. 1098. Nationalism and archaeology: On the constructions of nations and the reconstructions of the remote past, Annual Review of Anthropology 27: 223–46.Google Scholar
Larrouy, P. 1998. Les premières années du Musée des Antiquités Nationales, Antiquités nationales 30: 197–206.Google Scholar
Müller-Scheessel, N. 2001. Fair prehistory: archaeological exhibits at French Expositions universelles , Antiquity 75: 391–401.Google Scholar
Müller-Scheessel, N. Forthcoming. ‘… dem Romanismus entgegentreten’: National animosilics among the participants of the Congrès international d’anthropolugie et d’archéologie préhistoriques.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, A. 1997. L’amitié, une valeur scientifique. Les amitiés internationales des savants au tournant du siècle, Jean faurès: Cahiers trimestriels 143: 77–95.Google Scholar
Richard, N. 1992. L’institutionalisation de la préhistoire, Communications 54: 189–207.Google Scholar
Richard, N. 1999. Gabriel du Mortillet, 1821–1898, in Murray, T. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Archacology. The Great Archacologisis: 93–107. Santa Barbara (CA): ABC-Clio.Google Scholar
Rodden, J. 1981. The development of the Three Age System: Archaeology’s first paradigm, in Daniel, G. (ed.), Towards a history of archaeology. Being the papers read at the first Conference on the History of Archaeology in Aarhus, 29 August-2 September 1978: 51–68. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Schnapp, A. 1996. The discovery of the past. London: British Museum Press.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. G. 1989. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiell, S. 1999. The Congress of Anthropology and Archaeology in Copenhagen 1869—behind the stage, Antiquity 73: 136–42.Google Scholar