Search results
not only how classifications were established and demarcations made, why and by whom, but also how these created inclusions and exclusions. We should also consider the question: which theoretical, ideological, 49 50 Europe political or economic purposes did these classifications and demarcations serve – be it on an institutional or an individual level? Underlying purposes and interests are revealed even more clearly in moments when classifications were or are questioned, abandoned or overthrown. In this sense, it is quite peculiar that even at a time of greater
, funding and media attention required to successfully undertake the work. The chapters dealing with individuals are equally wide-ranging while following the central theme of informal communication between antiquarians and archaeologists. De Armond’s chapter discusses twentieth- century developments in Czechoslovakian Classical archaeology, the link with European politics and the role played by Antonín Salač. There are few in situ Classical remains within the Czech Republic and for most of the twentieth century Prague was far outside the geopolitical centre of Europe
’île anglo-normande d’Aurigny (Alderney) and letters in AMA show that Peter Arnold exchanged corresponded with Sylwester Kukuła, M. Francis Alföldi, Piotr Zadko and others. 76 Bonnard, The Island of Dread , pp. 136–143. 77 R. Sendyka, ‘Sites That Haunt: Affects and Non-sites of Memory’, East European Politics and Societies 30:4 (2016), 687. 78 M. Bunting, The Model Occupation – The Channel