Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Antropologia systematyczna i antropologia historyczna. Uwagi na marginesie artykułu Hansa Medicka „Quo vadis, antropologio historyczna?”

100%

Sofsky W.

Rocznik Antropologii Historii

|

2013

|

nr 2(5), Genealogie kultury

203–210

XX

Reprint: W. Sofsky, Systematische und historische Anthropoligie. Adnoten zu Hans Medicks: „Quo vadis Historische Anthropolgie?”, „Historische Anthropologie. Kultur. Gesellschaft. Alltag“, 2001, t. 9, z. 3, s. 457–461.

2

J. Banaszkiewicz, Takie sobie średniowieczne bajeczki

100%

Żmudzki P.

Rocznik Antropologii Historii

|

2012

|

nr 2(3)

365–373

XX

A review of Jacek Banaszkiewicz's book pt. Takie sobie średniowieczne bajeczki, wprowadzenie Michał Tomaszek, Kraków 2012, ss. 603.

3

Antropologia historyczna w Instytucie Historii PAN w Warszawie

100%

Radecka-Mikulicz K. , Żubka-Chmielewska Z.

Rocznik Antropologii Historii

|

2016

|

nr 9, Dziedzictwo kulturowe

389–391

XX

Presentation of current historical anthropology studies in the Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw.

4

Historyczna przestrzeń antropologii i antropologiczny czas historii

80%

Augé M.

Rocznik Antropologii Historii

|

2019

|

nr 12, Historia publiczna

XX

First edition: L'espace historique de l'anthropologie et le temps anthropologique de l'histoire. At Marc Augé. 1994. Pour une anthropologie des mondes contemporains, Paris: Flammarion. Text available only in printed version.

5

Między różnorodnością a uniwersalizmem, (J. Tanner, Historische Anthropologie zur Einführung)

80%

Kowalewski J.

Rocznik Antropologii Historii

|

2011

|

nr 1-2

279–298

XX

A review of the book by Jakob Tanner "Historische Anthropologie zur Einführung", Hamburg 2004, ss. 236.

6

Rocznik historii antropologizującej „Homo Historicus”

80%

Smalianczuk A.

Rocznik Antropologii Historii

|

2015

|

nr 8, Antropologia i historia

336-338

XX

Presentation of the achievements of the Belarusian scientific journal "Homo Historicus" (years 2008-2012).

7

Kilka uwag o antropologii historii

80%

Winberg C.

Rocznik Antropologii Historii

|

2014

|

nr 1(6), Semiotyka historii

195–229

XX

Reprint: Några anteckningar om historisk antropologi, „Historisk Tidskrift”, 1988,s. 1-29.

8

Antropologia i historia. Symetrie oglądu przeszłości. Kolokwium Sekcji Antropologii Historii PTL w Toruniu

80%

Kowalewski J.

Rocznik Antropologii Historii

|

2014

|

nr 1(6), Semiotyka historii

359–377

XX

Report from the conference "Anthropology and history: Panorama symmetries of the past" (Toruń, November 14-15, 2013).

9

Dyskusje o pograniczu antropologii kulturowej i historii nie będą miały końca (i o to chodzi)

80%

Robotycki C.

Rocznik Antropologii Historii

|

2012

|

nr 2(3)

17-20

EN

Pointing out new contexts in a contemporary reading of Robert Darnton’s The Great Massacre of Cats and Other Episodes in French Cultural History, the author asks whether the past polemics concerning the book are still valuable with regard to their content. He argues that the answer will depend on the reader’s awareness, that there is no single history today, just as there is no single anthropology. Both these disciplines do not have one, common method of interpretation, as reflected by a series of turns in the humanities which have occurred since the 1980s. the author is also convinced that the historian’s and the anthropologist’s sources will remain different and will never be conflated. the genres of utterances acquired by ethnography and by history constitute two different worlds and use different languages. However, the debate on the methods and scopes of common interpretations within the two disciplines must continue, since each generation of researchers thinks of them differently.

10

Czy vice versa? Historyczne antropologie i antropologiczne historie

80%

Dirks N. B.

Rocznik Antropologii Historii

|

2019

|

nr 12, Historia publiczna

XX

First edition: Is Vice Versa? Historical Anthropologies and Anthropological Histories. In The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences, Terrence J. McDonald, An Arbor: The University of Michigan Press 1996. Text available only in printed version.

11

Antropologia historyczna Piotra Kowalskiego a wrocławski projekt antropologii mediów

80%

Rydlewski M. , Woźny A.

Rocznik Antropologii Historii

|

2017

|

nr 10, Antropologia - folklor - historia

49–70

XX

For the last few years of his life, Piotr Kowalski returned to the city where a few decades earlier he studyed Polish philology and worked as a professor at The Institute of Journalism and Social Communication at the University of Wrocław. During his time in Wrocław, he wrote a very inspiring article named „Reflections on the anthropology of media". One of the main ideas was that historical anthropology is a background for the anthropology of media, which should be concentrated on cultural imaginarium ways of communications. In the article, we present how his ideas are being developed by us in our work entitled „scenario of culture" which was inspired by this researcher.

12

Wielka masakra kotów, symboli i antropologii historycznej

80%

Libera Z.

Rocznik Antropologii Historii

|

2012

|

nr 2(3)

103-112

EN

Robert Darnton’s book is one of the most faithful applications of the semiotic method to a study of unfamiliar symbolic forms that use Geertz’s thick description. in particular, it was Geertz’s interpretation of Balinese cockfights that became a model for Darnton’s interpretation of the Great Cat Massacre on a certain street in Paris in the 1730s. the criticism levelled at this famous book by J.W. Fernandez (an anthropologist), D. LaCapra (ideas historian) and R. Chartier (historian) is a reprise of the earlier criticism of Geertz by cultural anthropologists. it is also, mainly an “external criticism”, which is to mean it is levelled from the post-structuralist, or even post-humanistic positions. attempts to correct Darnton by redirecting the focus from the “native’s point of view” (of the participants in “the great cat massacre”) to the “cat’s point of view” as LaCapra would have wanted (which amounts to freshening the historical anthropology – according to Domańska – by tying it with another “turn” i.e. post-humanism) may lead to (and this is well worth investigating) “the massacre of historical anthropology”.

13

Historia i antropologia: nowe zbieżności? Debata zorganizowana przez Société d’histoire moderne et contemporaine

80%

Minard P.

Rocznik Antropologii Historii

|

2012

|

nr 2(3)

299–343

XX

Reprint: Histoire et anthropologie, nouvelles convergences?, „Revue d'Histoire Moderne & Contemporaine”, t. 49-4 bis, supplément 2002, (Bulletin de la Société d'Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine), s. 81–120.

14

Antropologia – folklor – historia. Piotr Kowalski (1952-2011) – in memoriam

80%

Kowalewski J.

Rocznik Antropologii Historii

|

2017

|

nr 10, Antropologia - folklor - historia

11–13

XX

Editorial

15

A. Kowalski, Świat Andrzeja Komonickiego, kronikarza Żywca. Studia z antropologii historycznej

70%

Rok B.

Rocznik Antropologii Historii

|

2011

|

nr 1-2

307–316

XX

A review of the book by Piotr Kowalski " Świat Andrzeja Komonieckiego, kronikarza Żywca. Studia z antropologii historycznej", Wrocław 2010, ss. 398.

16

Lektury (z) przeszłości

70%

Kowalewski J. , Żmudzki P.

Rocznik Antropologii Historii

|

2012

|

nr 2(3)

11–13

XX

The article is an introduction to the volume of RAH. The authors concentrate on the issue of language and representation and the controversy that arises from this: what does the historian, the past reality, or narratives about it really examine? The pretext is the dispute over the book by R. Darnton Great cat massacre...

17

Antropologia kulturowa i archeologia: etnoarcheologia w Toruniu

70%

Kowalewski J.

Rocznik Antropologii Historii

|

2016

|

nr 9, Dziedzictwo kulturowe

349–387

XX

Presentation of history and development of ethnoarchaeology studies at Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland.

18

Dlaczego Słowińcy nie chcą rozmawiać? O antropologicznym czytaniu historii

70%

Filip M.

Rocznik Antropologii Historii

|

2015

|

nr 8, Antropologia i historia

167–188

XX

The aim of this essay is to familiarize the reader with the very anthropological (ethnological) approach to the past. It will be done not by presenting or formulating any theoretical program, but by looking at how it is practiced, taking the intriguing group of Slovincians as a case study. A pretext for my anthropologically informed reading of history is given by a question: “why Slovincians do not want to talk?”, which emerges to be the most important one during my fieldwork on their contemporary life. The elaborated research strategy and its outcomes makes it possible to outline the difference between the anthropological and historical ways of studying the past.

19

Textiles in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century probate inventories from Styria (Austria): innovation and distribution

70%

Pöttler B.

Český lid: etnologický časopis (Český lid: Ethnological journal)

|

2023

|

tom 110

|

nr 1

11-31

EN

This paper focuses on the inhabitants of the duchy of Styria, the inhabitants of small towns, market towns, the capital Graz and rural dominions. There is a particular emphasis on local merchants who were distributors of fabrics and final products. Their probate inventories allow us to gain insights into the products that were locally available and are often regarded as best source for research into changes in consumer habits. Cotton and silk are important indicators of such changes. The article is based on probate inventories covering the period from around 1660 to around 1790, along with several examples from before and after this period. The core of the research database is nearly 1,140 probate inventories from the monastery of Seckau, around 110 from the city of Graz, and another 234 from other Styrian towns, market towns, and dominions. Despite the relatively large number of sources, the study follows a historical-anthropological approach.

20

Evropský středoevropan Bedřich Loewenstein

70%

Havelka M.

Soudobé dějiny (Contemporary History)

|

2018

|

tom 25

|

nr 1-2

35-51

EN

In his article, the author presents, in a concise and condensed fashion, the foundation, contours, principal features, and themes of the thinking of Bedřich Loewenstein (1929–2017), a modern and contemporary history historian spanning a multitude of disciplines. He fi nds the deepest layer of Loewenstein’s thinking in historical anthropology, in his interest in specifi c human beings and their actions, motivations, and orientations, explaining the historian’s “frame of mind” by his personal, lived experience of a Central European intellectual confronted with dramatic turns of history in the twentieth century. This also the reason behind Loewenstein’s understanding for the diversity of identities (in Central Europe mainly ethnic and national) and their coexistence, as well as his sensitivity to historical location and conditionality of individuals. According to Havelka, Loewenstein was representing a viewpoint (fairly rare in the Czech environment) which regarded “spiritual sciences” as sciences on creations of the collective and individual human spirit, focusing also on historical forms and infl uences of these creations, no matter whether his research topic was Fascism, “Bonapartism”, civic society, development and progress, or, more generally, history of ideas. The author points at Loewenstein’s skepticism toward constructions of great theories and his pronounced terminological nominalism refusing to grant essential validity to collective entities such as nations and cultures. This is related to Loewenstein’s conviction about the openness of history, both to the past and to the future, toward potential alternative interpretations. The historical pessimism is counterbalanced by Loewenstein’s complementary perception of historical processes of disciplination and emancipation, or the formation of order and human freedom, although he was also a historian of nationalism, violence, and mass manipulation. The author pays special attention to Loewenstein’s concepts of modernity, civilization, and mainly belief in progress, which is viewed in his works in diverse manifestations of its ambiguity. In the end, Havelka emphasizes Loewenstein’s Europeism as a perspective of his historical view and as an integrating civilization principle which is associated with trust in intellect as a means of understanding, tolerance, and consensus.

CS

Autor v této stati koncentrovaně představuje východiska, kontury, hlavní rysy i témata myšlení Bedřicha Loewensteina (1929–2017) jako interdisciplinárně rozkročeného historika moderních a soudobých dějin. Nejhlubší vrstvu jeho přemýšlení nad dějinami nachází v historické antropologii, v zájmu o konkrétní lidské jedince a jejich jednání, motivace, orientace, a vztahuje toto historikovo „naladění“ k jeho osobní, žité zkušenosti středoevropského intelektuála konfrontovaného s dramatickými zvraty dějin ve dvacátém století. Odtud plyne i Loewensteinovo porozumění pro různost identit (ve středoevropském prostoru především etnických a nacionálních) a jejich koexistenci, jakož i citlivost pro historickou situovanost a podmíněnost individuí. Podle Havelky reprezentoval (v českém prostředí vzácné) hledisko „duchověd“ jako věd o výtvorech individuálního a kolektivního lidského ducha a o historických formách těchto výtvorů a jejich působení, ať už to byl v jeho badatelské náplni fašismus, ,,bonapartismus'', občanská společnost, vývoj a pokrok či obecněji dějiny idejí. Autor poukazuje na určitou Loewensteinovu skepsi vůči konstrukcím velkých teorií a na jeho zřetelný pojmový nominalismus, odmítající přiznat kolektivním útvarům typu národa či kultury esenciální platnost. S tím souvisí jeho přesvědčení o otevřenosti dějin do budoucnosti i minulosti, ve směru k jejich možným alternativním výkladům. Proti historickému pesimismu směřuje Loewensteinovo komplementární vidění historických procesů disciplinace a emancipace, respektive utváření řádu a lidské svobody, přestože byl také historikem nacionalismu, násilí a masové manipulace. Zvláštní pozornost věnuje autor Loewensteinově pojetí modernity, civilizace, a hlavně víry v pokrok, nahlížené v jeho díle v různých projevech její dvojznačnosti. Závěrem Havelka vyzdvihuje Loewensteinovo evropanství jako perspektivu jeho historického nadhledu a jako integrující civilizační princip, s nímž se pojí důvěra v rozum jako prostředek dorozumění, v toleranci a hledání konsenzu.