Search results

Andrzej Grzegorczyk

The Kulmhof extermination camp in Chełmno nad Nerem was the first camp set up by the Nazis to exterminate Jews during the Second World War. The history of Kulmhof has long been an area of interest for academics, but despite thorough research it remains one of the least-known places of its kind among the public. Studies of the role of archaeology in acquiring knowledge about the functioning of the camp have been particularly compelling. The excavations carried out intermittently over a thirty-year period (1986–2016), which constitute the subject of this article, have played a key role in the rise in public interest in the history of the camp.

Human Remains and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Journal
Abstract only

6 6 1 1 Editorial Editorial Dreyfus Jean-Marc 23 07 2020 04 2020 6 6 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 10.7227/HRV.6.1.1 Article The history of archaeological research at the site of the former Kulmhof extermination camp Grzegorczyk Andrzej a.grzegorczyk@muzeumtradycji.pl 23 07 2020 04 2020 6 6 1 1 4 4 14 14 2 10.7227/HRV.6.1.2 Mapping Ponar (Paneriai) A reassessment Seligman Jon jon@israntique.org.il Bauman Paul Freund Richard Jol Harry McClymont Alastair Reeder Philip 23 07 2020 04 2020 6 6 1 1 15 15 39 39 3 10.7227/HRV.6.1.3 The

The dynamic processes of knowledge production in archaeology and elsewhere in the humanities and social sciences are increasingly viewed within the context of negotiation, cooperation and exchange, as the collaborative effort of groups, clusters and communities of scholars. Shifting focus from the individual scholar to the wider social contexts of her work, this volume investigates the importance of informal networks and conversation in the creation of knowledge about the past, and takes a closer look at the dynamic interaction and exchange that takes place between individuals, groups and clusters of scholars in the wider social settings of scientific work. Various aspects of and mechanisms at work behind the interaction and exchange that takes place between the individual scholar and her community, and the creative processes that such encounters trigger, are critically examined in eleven chapters which draw on a wide spectrum of examples from Europe and North America: from early modern antiquarians to archaeological societies and practitioners at work during the formative years of the modern archaeological disciplines and more recent examples from the twentieth century. The individual chapters engage with theoretical approaches to scientific creativity, knowledge production and interaction such as sociology and geographies of science, and actor-network theory (ANT) in their examination of individual–collective interplay. The book caters to readers both from within and outside the archaeological disciplines; primarily intended for researchers, teachers and students in archaeology, anthropology, classics and the history of science, it will also be of interest to the general reader.

Re-thinking Ludwik Fleck’s concept of the thought-collective according to the case of Serbian archaeology
Monika Milosavljević

-style.1 To this end, this chapter seeks to delve into Fleck’s theories on knowledge production to study how they function in practice in the history of archaeology, as based on empirical data consisting of various texts and citation relations that are used to track a particular thought-collective in a clearer, more visual manner. In doing this, a further aim of this chapter is to introduce new theoretical tools for the history of ideas as well as how they may be implemented as inherent to specific methodological strategies. Kuhn’s concept of a paradigm is limited in its

in Communities and knowledge production in archaeology
Open Access (free)
Clusters of knowledge
Julia Roberts and Kathleen Sheppard

Introduction: clusters of knowledge Julia Roberts and Kathleen Sheppard This edited volume is the first to apply scientific network theories to the history of archaeology. As an innovative approach to historiography it takes its place amongst recent studies that have transformed the discipline. Using theories including those of Ludwik Fleck, David Livingstone, Michel Callon and Bruno Latour, the authors of the following chapters have taken an unprecedented approach to their subjects: rather than looking at individuals and groups biographically or institutionally

in Communities and knowledge production in archaeology
Open Access (free)
Archaeology, networks, and the Smithsonian Institution, 1876–79
James E. Snead

Intricate networks of collectors and institutions have been fundamental elements of the infrastructure of archaeology. Informal, fluid networks particularly characterized communities of antiquarian interest in the nineteenth century United States, when limited institutional development coincided with increased public interest in indigenous relics. Competition over American antiquities intensified during the 1870s, a period marked both by increased regional interest in the indigenous past and national demand sparked by the 1876 Centennial Exposition. In this effort the Smithsonian’s two archaeologists, Charles Rau and Otis Tufton Mason, fell back on the time-honored mechanism of a circular, dispatched through their national network. This document, ‘Circular 316: In Regard to American Antiquities,’ generated an enormous response. What one contemporary called an ‘undigested mass of information’ is actually a unique account of a complex pattern. The history of archaeological practice that emerges is one not of a steady drive toward professional accountability and standards, but instead of motivated actors pursuing personal ambitions associated with the exploration of the past in a mode that directly reflects the cultural and social context of the United States in the 1870s.

in Communities and knowledge production in archaeology
The case of Oscar Montelius and Italy
Anna Gustavsson

– ­influence the production of knowledge in a variety of ways. Such ideas were a reaction to earlier notions that (good) science is placeless (Livingstone, 2003: 1–5; Naylor, 2005: 2). To me, adapting geographical perspectives when writing histories of archaeology offers the possibility to add new perspectives and methods to a field (archaeology and its history) where these ideas are relatively new. As pointed out by Withers and Livingstone (2011: 1), a great number of aspects and themes of science can be analysed by thinking of knowledge production in geographic terms,4 and

in Communities and knowledge production in archaeology
Open Access (free)
The first Dutch excavation in Italy, 1952–58
Arthur Weststeijn and Laurien de Gelder

-archaeological context of the excavation itself into a subject of investigation. Recent work on the evolution of archaeology into an independent scientific discipline has covered many approaches to studying the histories of archaeological knowledge production, resulting in biographies of discoverers, genealogies of discoveries and historical analyses of the institutional contexts ROBERTS 9781526134554 PRINT.indd 67 03/12/2019 08:56 68 Communities and knowledge production in archaeology 4.1  Maarten Vermaseren (left) and Carel Claudius van Essen studying the portrait of Serapis

in Communities and knowledge production in archaeology
Felix Kanitz and Balkan archaeology
Vladimir V. Mihajlović

10 Frontier gentlemen’s club: Felix Kanitz and Balkan archaeology Vladimir V. Mihajlović Histories of archaeology show that our disciplinary knowledge has immensely diverse origins, in terms of its interactions not just with other fields of scholarly inquiry, but within the field of archaeology itself. Routes of communication exist outside ‘regular’ academic channels and have a great influence on the production and transmission of disciplinary knowledge. Knowledge that is now perceived as canonical has often been conceived through contacts made outside

in Communities and knowledge production in archaeology
Open Access (free)
Antonín Salač and the French School at Athens
Thea De Armond

awaits the Classical archaeologist and where a Czech worker would be welcomed and supported.’56 In summary, then, Salač’s archaeological research began in one of the centres of Classical archaeology, Greece, where he was only able to work as an affiliate of the French School, an affiliation he was able to secure, mostly thanks to France’s interwar foreign policy. He proceeded thence to Turkey – relatively speaking, a centre of Classical archaeology, but somewhat less central than Greece geographically (that is, vis-à-vis Europe), and with a less intensive history of

in Communities and knowledge production in archaeology