Aim: to initiate a comparative reflection among several European countries
on the development of social sciences and on the prospects of European cooperation,
taking into account factors that may have a bearing in the establishment and
functioning of a European research environment (ERA), such as:
- Differences in the development of the social and human sciences during the
20th century, in terms of epistemological presuppositions, discontinuities in
disciplinary development, diversity of political and cultural environments;
- National diversity in the forms of organization and institutionalization of
these disciplines.
Approach: in discussing these questions we propose to focus on two fields of
study: archaeology, and cultural and social anthropology; in other words, on
disciplines that intersect in many ways, despite differences in their traditions
and in scientific and institutional organization.
Questions of a general nature:
- The evolution of these disciplines within different political and cultural
contexts during the 20th century;
- Changing borderlines (which may differ from one country or “culture”
to another) with neighboring disciplines;
- The role of archaeology and of cultural and social anthropology in the ideological
construction of the past, in particular of the national past;
- The impact of politics, the political uses of these disciplines (and the ways
in which international exchanges have been affected by politics);
- To what extent has bi- or multilateral cooperation between Eastern and Central
European countries been affected since 1989? Have certain pre-war traditions
been taken up again, and if so, how?
- The relevance of the structures of research and education in the development
of these disciplines;
- An overview of institutional and human resources (before and after 1989),
that should also attempt to assess the role played by the national Academies
of Science in the development of research in different Eastern and Central European
countries, and describe the ways in which research and teaching (in particular
doctoral training) has been and is being financed;
- Participation of Eastern researchers to research programs initiated in the
West (France, Germany), and of Western researchers in East-based research programs
in Europe;
- What programs or program modifications, and what infrastructure or structural
changes will favor and reinforce the Europeanization of these disciplines in
the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe?
ARCHAEOLOGY:
- History and organization of knowledge in archaeology, with respect to classical
and national antiquities, and to related disciplines;
- How are research topics defined (who defines them?) What has changed in this
respect in the Eastern and Central European countries since 1989?
- A national, regional, or international science?
- A comparison of institutions (in a very broad sense) and of their respective
roles;
- Conditions for Europeanization; what role can West European archaeological
centers play from this point of view?
CULTURAL AND SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY:
- The weight of local traditions in the development of cultural and social anthropology
as independent fields; in many ECE countries cultural and social anthropology
have not developed independently before 1989; has this changed? Is there an
interest for issues that concern non-European areas of research?
- What conditions should be fulfilled for cultural and social anthropology to
find its institutional place in Central and Eastern Europe between physical
anthropology, ethnology, sociology, philosophy, and history? Is physical anthropology
still a widespread discipline in ECE? Is the Volkskunde/Völkerkunde distinction
still considered relevant?
- What infra-structural measures (in a very broad sense) should be conceived
in order to develop common topics and research approaches? (East/West cooperation
in doctoral training, in the financing of field research might be considered,
e.g.)
1. General presentations concerning the current state of research and education
(with a focus on research topics and methodology) in different areas of Europe.
2. Case studies focused on the presentation of networks and institutions, and/or
on the analysis of conditions of exchanges and mobility.
3. Access to information and documentation: libraries, documentation centers,
publications, and networks.
4. Proposals for future collaborative projects.
19:00 Buffet reception
10:00 - 13:30
Edouard Conte, Directeur de recherche au CNRS, Paris
Nation, généalogie et appartenances au Moyen-Orient
John Victor Tolan, Maître de conférences, Département d’histoire,
Université de Nantes
Using the Middle Ages to Construct Spanish Identity: Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century
Spanish Historiography of Reconquest
Predrag Novakovic, Assistant Professor, Department of Archaeology, Faculty
of Arts, Ljubljana
National Identities and Archaeology in Former Yugoslavia
11:00 – 11:30 Coffee break/ Pause café
Jean-Paul Demoule, Université de Paris I
Identités nationales et manipulation de l'archéologie dans
les Balkans
Elke-Nikole Kappus, Assistant Professor, Ethnologisches Seminar, Universität
Fribourg
The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnography, Anthropology and Politics in
Istria
Brief interventions by
Julianna Bodo, Researcher, Center for Anthropology and Regional Studies, Miercurea
Ciuc
Chances and Challenges for the Anthropologist Working on a Minority Group
Smaranda Vultur, Maître de conférences, Université de Timisoara
Le récit de vie comme objet anthropologique
Summing up and comments by discussant
General discussion
13:30 – 15:00 Lunch
15:00 – 19:00
Mircea Babes, Professeur, Faculté d’histoire, Université
de Bucarest, Directeur de recherche, Institut d’archéologie "
Vasile Pârvan ", Bucarest
L’archéologie roumaine en " transition "
Andrzej Prinke, Senior Keeper, Poznan Archaeological Museum, Head of Archaeological
Heritage Service for Poznan Province
Between Research Projects and Free Market Economy: Recent Trends in Polish
Archaeology
Alexandru Niculescu, Senior Researcher, Institute of Archaeology “Vasile
Pârvan”, Bucharest
Theory in Romanian Archaeology
Summing up and comments by discussant
Synthèse et commentaires par le discussant
16:20 –16:40 Coffee break/ Pause café
Vintila Mihailescu, Chargée de recherche, Centre d’études
anthropologiques " Francisc Rainer ", Bucarest
A quoi bon une anthropologie par ces temps
de transition ?
László Kürti, Secretary, European Association of Social Anthropologists
(EASA), Professor, University of Miskolc, Hungary
The New Anthropology of the New Europe: Questions and Answers
Ivaylo Ditchev, Associate Professor of the History and Theory of Culture, University
of Sofia
New Keywords, New Images. Bulgarian Politics of Self-Representation After
1989
Summing up and comments by discussant
Synthèse et commentaires par le discussant
General discussion
20:00 Dinner/diner
9:30 – 13:30
Christian Giordano, Professor, Ethnologisches Seminar, Universität Fribourg
The Challenge of Historical Anthropology
Arkadiusz Marciniak, Associate Professor, Institute of Prehistory, University
of Poznan
The Twisting Paths of Cooperation Between Archaeology and Anthropology. The
Example of Poland.
Barbara Waldis, Assistant Professor, Institute of Ethnology, Neuchâtel
Anthropology in Switzerland As an Integrating Social Science?
10:40 – 11:00 Coffee break/Pause café
Marian Kempny, Associate Professor and Senior Researcher, Institute of Philosophy
and Social Sciences, Warsaw
The End of Ethnography - the Beginning of Anthropology?
Changing Disciplinary Boundaries Within the Field of Social Sciences: the Polish
Case and Wider Trends
Summing up and comments by discussant
Synthèse et commentaires par le discussant
General discussion
13:30 – 15:00 Lunch/ déjeuner
15:00 – 18:30
Andrey Korotayev, Professor, Russian State University for the Humanities, Head
of the Program “Social Anthropology of the East”, Moscow
Development of Socio-Cultural Anthropology in Russia: Some General Trends
and Factors
Brief interventions by/ Brèves interventions de:
Enikö Magyari-Vincze, Associate Professor, University Babes-Bolyai, Cluj
The Condition of Anthropology In-Between Institutional
Structures and Individual Performances
Marius Lazurca, Maître assistant, Faculté des lettres, philosophie
et histoire, Université de Timisoara
Comment l’anthropologie se fait-elle une place dans les programmes universitaires,
en prenant pour référence la situation à l’Université
de Timisoara
Nona Palincas, Senior Researcher, Institute of Archaeology “Vasile Pârvan”,
Bucharest
The Archaeological Diggings as “Authorized Destructions” and the
Role of Higher Education in the Field of Archaeology in Romania
Brief interventions by/Brèves interventions de:
Irina Nicolau, Directrice, Direction des programmes ethnologiques et action
culturelle, Musée du Paysan Roumain, Bucarest
Le retour des " savants " au musée
Ioana Popescu, Chef du département d’anthropologie visuelle, Musée
du Paysan Roumain, Bucarest
L’image documentaire – une dernière illusion
Anca Manolescu, Rédactrice en chef de la revue Martor, revue d’anthropologie
du Musée du Paysan Roumain, Bucarest
" Martor ", l’interrogation
retrouvée : pour une lecture partagée et plurielle
16:20 – 16:40 Coffe break/Pause café
Anick Coudart, Directrice de recherche, CNRS, Paris
Le projet du réseau des Maisons des sciences de l’homme en France
:
" La construction identitaire dans les sociétés passées
et présentes : le rôle de l’archéologie, de l’ethnologie
et de l’histoire "
Nathan Schlänger, Scientific Coordinator of the AREA Programme (Archives
of European Archaeology), Institut National d'Histoire de l'Art, Paris
The Archives of European Archaeology: a Memory for the Discipline
Summing up and comments by discussant
Synthèse et commentaires par le discussant
General discussion
20:00 Dinner/diner
"(...)In close consultation with the co-ordinator of the program, Professor
Hinnerk Bruhns, representing in the Network the MSH in Paris, we decided to
concentrate in this workshop on two disciplines: archaeology, and cultural and
social anthropology.
The decision to focus on these disciplines came also as a result of consultations
with fellows, alumni and scholars close to the NEC, and should be seen, beyond
our involvment in the activities of the Network, in the context of a more general
concern NEC has, to assess “the state of disciplines” in a number
of fields within the social sciences and the humanities. Concentrating on the
two disciplines mentioned appeared to us to respond to certain local urgencies,
and at the same time to connect in a meaningful way with the general activities
of the Network, as well as with collaborative projects between institutes which
are members of the Network.
We proposed to discuss during the workshop the state of each of the two chosen
disciplines, as well as their potential interrelation; to foster a communication
between scholars in archaeology and scholars in cultural and social anthropology
that is virtually absent in Romania, e.g.
(...)In organising the workshop we have relied first of all on the partner institutes
in the Network, and started by addressing our call for participation to the
representatives of these institutions. In taking into account the suggestions
received as a result, we spread the net wider, in order to include a more significant
number of participants; this was not primarily a question of numbers; we wished
to have in the workshop participants from different countries, both in the East
and in the West, representing different disciplinary traditions, and a variety
of institutional settings.
In organising the workshop at the Romanian end, we have relied on the help of
specialists from the two disciplines, and have done our best to bring to the
workshop people representing different outlooks, and coming from the main university
and research centers in Romania. We were more successful in this as far as anthropology
is concerned; we had invited a number of archaeologists from the main university
centers in Romania outside Bucharest, who were unable to attend the workshop.
In terms of local urgencies to which we wished the workshop to respond, the
situation differs if we look at archaeology, or at social and cultural anthropology.
Archaeology is an established discipline in Romania, where its practice has
been, and still is represented by distinguished scholars and researchers, both
in Bucharest and outside it. There are, however, aspects that appeared to us
to merit a discussion that would greatly benefit, in our view, from the presence
of foreign scholars, both from the region and from Western Europe. Firstly,
the fact that despite its secure position within the scholarly community in
Romania, there is no specific higher education in archaeology at Romanian universities,
where archaeology is taught at history departments, with consequences that some
of the contributions to the workshop have attempted to address. Another question
that seemed to us to deserve attention is the relatively limited concern for
theoretical and methodological issues among Romanian archaeologists, again,
an issue addressed in Romanian contributions to the workshop.
To briefly describe the situation in anthropology, there has been in Romania
a long standing tradition in physical anthropology; the very name of the center
for anthropological studies in Bucharest, “The Francisc Rainer Center of
Anthropology”, refers to one of the outstanding figures in physical anthropology
in Romania. Social and cultural anthropology have a much less authoritative
and secure tradition, and this also reflects at an institutional level, in the
situation of research and higher education in these fields. During the last
few years a number of initiatives have led to the setting up of research groups
in social and cultural anthropology, not only in Bucharest, but also in Cluj,
Timisoara, Sibiu, Miercurea Ciuc. It seemed important not only to bring together
representatives of these groups, but also to enable them to establish a dialogue
with more experienced colleagues from abroad. With such concerns in mind, we
also invited a few Romanian representatives of the two disciplines beyond the
participants proper to attend the workshop.
While such local concerns have been important in conceiving this event, the
workshop was however, first and foremost, an occasion to discuss issues regarding
the two disciplines in a larger European context. It was an occasion for presentations
coming from very reputed scholars, as well as from younger ones, bringing together
researchers from Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Slovenia, Switzerland,
and Romania, each of them representing different disciplinary traditions, and
touching upon issues of both common and local interest. The schedule of the
workshop was conceived so as to give ample time to comments by the discussants
in each section, as well as to discussions among the participants, which proved
quite lively and interesting. It was also an opportunity to acquaint colleagues
with individual and group research projects, paving the way to possible future
joint projects, involving Western as well as Eastern colleagues.
One should say that from a local point of view the workshop proved a success,
if success is to be measured by the fact that it had immediate sequels; in its
wake we hosted at the NEC a meeting of the Romanian Anthropological Society,
to which colleagues coming from other fields (archaeology included) were invited.
One of the questions addressed during this meeting was that of higher education
in social and cultural anthropology, in connection with initiatives of setting
up MA programs in cultural and social anthropology in relationship with other
fields of study (history, archaeology, architecture, visual arts) at a number
of higher education institutions in Romania.
As a result of discussions during the workshop, which he attended, the director
of the Institute of Archaeology in Bucharest, Professor Alexandru Vulpe, decided
to initiate a series of debates at his institute, taking as a starting point
the papers presented at the workshop by some of the Romanian participants, which
were addressing critical aspects of the practice of archaeology in Romania.
(...)"