The study pays attention to the formation of the research into Nativ Americans, as well as to the ethical issues connected not only
with the discipline of cultural anthropology, but also of museology,
archaeology, or cultural studies. The study reflects the development
in the attitude to Nativ Americans since the second half of the 19th
century. It describes the foundation of the Institute of American Ethnology, the formation of anthropology in the USA as well as the era of Franz Boas, one of its founders. It also reflects the criticism by Indian academicians. It points out the interconnection between political ideologies, relation to Indians (and all indigenous inhabitants of North America) and definition of research, most visibly especially in connection with applied anthropology It also focuses on contemporary trends, ethical codes, and the role of the Native American and Indigenous Studies within the context of decolonization.
The first part of the text addresses the development of ethnography, ethnology and anthropology, respectively, as fields of study, based on the change of the research paradigm. The second part is focused on two most progressive sub-fields of the contemporary anthropology: urban and ethnic anthropology, respectively. It analyses the development of these two fields after 1989, as well as the key areas of research, especially with regard to the change of the political and social system and climate. The aim of the study is to accentuate the confusion with regard to the use of the terms ethnography, ethnology and anthropology and the development continuity of the field. In addition, it aims to underline the social bias of this field of study, even after 1989. Present-day anthropology applies the holistic approach and has remained, to a great extent, part of history. However, it would seem that its comparative scope is its weakness.
Evropa se nachází pod tlakem silné imigrace. Nejde přitom o nic nového, v pravěku docházelo k migracím poměrně často a lze říci, že z dnešního pohledu náš genofond spíše obohatily. Pro budoucí identitu příchozích je podstatné, jak se k nim budeme nyní chovat, protože identita se vytváří vždy v interakcích., Europe is under a relatively strong immigration pressure. However, this is nothing new; prehistoric migrations occurred quite often and we can retrospectively summarize they rather enriched our gene pool. Since the identity of immigrants is always created in interactions, it is essential how we treat these people right now., and Viktor Černý, Martin Hájek.
Text se zabývá Latourovým pojetím překladu. Poukazuje na některé epistemologické problémy, které vyplývají ze zohledňování překladu jako předmětu zájmu. Tyto problémy lze redukovat na otázku, zda se na výsledné podobě překladu podílí jen poznávající subjekt, nebo také studovaná skutečnost. Podle způsobu řešení této otázky lze rozlišit mezi lingvistickým a nelingvistickým přístupem. Latourovu snahu o systematičtější vymezení překladu lze chápat jako odklon od lingvistické tradice ve prospěch nelingvistických forem podílejících se na vymezení programu epistemologického obratu. V textu jsou v tomto směru diskutovány především problémy redukcionismu, asymetrie, zobecněné symetrie, aktérství a role badatele ve výzkumném procesu. V Latourově perspektivě tento proces není záležitostí fakticity, nýbrž ontologické politiky, v níž dochází k vyjednávání o tom, co činí svět reálným., The article deals with translational concept of Bruno Latour, focusing on some epistemological issues that arise from the consideration of translation as object of interest. These issues can be reduced to the question whether the final form of translation involves only the knowing subject, or the studied reality as well. Based on the solution to this question, we can distinguish between linguistic and nonlinguistic approaches. Latour's attempt at systematic conceptualization of translation can be seen as a deflection from the linguistic tradition in favor of non-linguistic forms involved in the program of the ontological turn. In this sense, the text describes primarily the issues of reductionism, asymmetry, generalized symmetry, agency and the role of researcher in the research process. In Latour's view, this process is not the matter of facts, but matter of concerns, in which ontological politics consists of the process of negotiation over what makes up the real world., and Tomáš Kobes.
The study focuses on theoretical analysis of selected controversies on social and cultural anthropology with a special attention to the
habitual practice in the
organization of field research In his study, the author relies on selected ethnological concepts and submits a thesis that intraspecific competition and territorial and predatory behaviour of researchers can become a source of controversies within the discipline. In the conclusion, the author compares anthropologists and ethnologists to headhunters who - at the “initiative ritual” of field research - acquire the reputation of those by whom they carried out ihe field research.
A Seminar of the European Association of Social Anthropologists (EASA) was organized in collaboration with the Institute of Ethnology of the CAS and the Czech Association of Social Anthropologists on the occasion of the EASA Annual General Meeting on October 14-15, 2015. The seminarMaking Anthropology Matter was intended as a forum to discuss the role that anthropology as an academic discipline and intellectual endeavour plays and could play in the contemporary European public sphere. Some of the themes under discussion were mobility, migration and multiculturalism; economic crises, neoliberalism and human economies; and environment, sustainability and responses to climate change. The event was tied to the current Executive Committee’s priority of strengthening the position of anthropology at different levels across Europe. and Zdeněk Uherek.
Tématem příspěvku je nová analýza dostupných poznatků o hrobech K1 a K2 v lodi předrománské rotundy sv. Víta, které byly objeveny již v roce 1911 a připisovány několika přemyslovským knížatům. Provedena byla zejména revize antropologických poznatků, analýzy stabilních izotopů uhlíku (δ13C) a dusíku (δ15N), analýza DNA a radiouhlíkové datování. Získaná data nedávají dohromady konzistentní obraz. Archeologie vylučuje připsání ostatků knížeti Bořivoji I. († asi 888/889), antropologie pak knížeti Boleslavu I. († 972). Oba obory by dovolovaly připsat s určitou pravděpodobností kosterní ostatky knížeti Boleslavu II. († 999), tomu ale neodpovídá radiokarbonové datování. Navržena je možnost připsat ostatky písemně doloženému jménem neznámému synovi knížete Boleslava I., který zemřel před rokem 972. Analýza DNA z K2 připsala ostatky ženě, pravděpodobně tedy manželce osoby K1. and The subject of the article is a new analysis of available information on graves K1 and K2 in the nave of the pre-Romanesque St. Vitus Rotunda; discovered in 1911, the graves have been attributed to various Přemyslid princes. The main work involved a review of anthropological findings, analyses of stable carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N) isotopes, a DNA analysis and radiocarbon dating. Taken together, obtained data do not provide a consistent image. Archaeology rules out the attribution of the remains to Prince Bořivoji I († c. 888/889), while anthropology eliminates the possibility of the burial of Boleslav I († 972). With a high degree of probability, both of these scientific disciplines would permit the identification of the individual as Prince Boleslav II († 999), but this possibility is then eliminated by radiocarbon dating. The author suggests the possibility of attributing the remains to a son of Prince Boleslav I, an individual whose name is not documented in written sources and who died before 972. A DNA analysis revealed that the remains in grave K2 belonged to a woman, i.e. probably the wife of the individual buried in grave K1.