Th e article presents the Marxist feminist perspective on primitive accumulation and early capitalist history put forward by Silvia Federici in her work, Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body, and Primitive Accumulation. According to Federici and other Marxist feminists, Marx’s description of the origins of capitalism lacks an important diff erentiation. Whereas in Capital the main focus is placed on the male, waged proletariat, Federici focuses more on the changes in gender relations and status of women that accompany the process of primitive accumulation. Th e article fi rstly situates the origins of feminist perspectives on primitive accumulation into their historical context and links them with their preceding debates. Th e following sections then present a comparison of Marx’s and Federici’s account of primitive accumulation and the early history of capitalism. Th e article mainly focuses on the forms of primitive accumulation that are absent in Capital. Th ese forms include, above all, a new division of labour, subjugation of reproduction to the needs of capital, and an economical, legal, cultural, and symbolical degradation of women.
‘Carantanian / Köttlach’ jewellery from southwest Slovakia and from the other parts of the Carpathian Basin. In the Slovak and Hungarian archaeological literature, a small group of early medieval jewellery from southwest Slovakia was labelled as being of ‘Carantanian / Köttlach’ provenance, meaning that it originated from Eastern Alps region (today’s Austria and Slovenia). The goal of the article is a revision of the issue of provenance in the context of analogous finds from Moravia and the Carpathian Basin (i.e. today’s Hungary, western Romania and northeastern Croatia). The provenenace from the Eastern Alps region can be confirmed in the case of several Slovak finds only, the others are of local origin. Also, from the point of view of chronology, we are dealing with a relatively heterogenous group of jewellery, with a date-range from the turn of the 8th-9th centuries to the 11th century. The author tries to demonstrate that the argument in the middle of the 20th century and later about the ‘influences from the Eastern Alps region’ was dependent on the state of archaeological research at that time. It was a viewpoint that over-emphasised the importance of early medieval ‘Köttlach culture’ in Eastern Alps region, especially for the spreading of some jewellery types to other regions of middle and southeastern Europe., Šimon Ungerman., and Obsahuje seznam literatury
The article deals with the question of correct reconstruction of and solutions to the ancient paradoxes. Analyzing one contemporary example of a reconstruction of the so-called Crocodile Paradox, taken from Sorensen’s A Brief History of Paradox, the author shows how the original pattern of paradox could have been incorrectly transformed in its meaning by overlooking its adequate historical background. Sorensen’s quoting of Aphthonius, as the author of a certain solution to the paradox, seems to be a systematic failure since the time of Politiano’s erroneous attributing it to Aphthonius. In the conclusion, the author claims that neglecting the historical background of the ancient paradoxes into account, we are neither able to evaluate their modern interpretations as adequate nor their solutions as successful., Článek se zabývá otázkou správné rekonstrukce a řešení starověkých paradoxů. Analýza jednoho současného příkladu rekonstrukce tzv. Krokodýlového paradoxu, převzatého z Sorensenovy stručné historie paradoxu , ukazuje, jak mohl být původní vzor paradoxu ve svém významu nesprávně transformován tím, že přehlédl jeho historické pozadí. Sorensenovo citování Aphthoniusa, jako autora určitého řešení paradoxu, se jeví jako systematické selhání od doby, kdy ho politiánův omyl přisuzoval Aphthoniusovi. V závěru autorka prohlašuje, že zanedbání historického pozadí starověkých paradoxů není schopno hodnotit jejich moderní interpretace jako adekvátní ani jejich řešení jako úspěšná., and Vladimír Marko
The issue of migration among the rural population living on the lands of the Czech Crown in the early modern age continues to attract only marginal attention in Czech historiography. Therefore, those people who lived on the very edge of that society remain outside the scope of research interest. The Romany Gypsies who were bom without homes, lie also outside the traditional focus of attention. In the early modern age, anyone could kill a Romany Gypsy without punishment; people were meant to despise them and were even supposed to persecute them. The Romany Gypsies were therefore forced to develop a specific strategy of action, which was intended to help them survive, and a significant role in this strategy was played by migration. A condition for survival was not only the need to maintain a strong internal structure within the Romany Gypsy group, but also the need to create ties with a settled society. These ties ensured, in the case of a threat, at least some form of a rudimentary protective social network. Such ties were probably passed down from generation to generation and the Romany Gypsies therefore, as much as was possible, restricted their movements to only well-known areas. On their travels through the landscape they tried to obtain food not only through begging and theft, but also by telling fortunes and reading palms, skilfully taking advantage of the fact that in the eyes of the settled population their lives were cloaked in mystery. However, they never forgot to emphasise their ties to the land in which they were bom and the impossibility of leaving it for another land. A question remains for further research as to whether they were persecuted for their ethnic origin or whether it was because of their nomadic lifestyle, which enabled them to evade the mechanisms of social control.