Traditions And Transformations

This study was conceived of some years ago as a sequel to the metallographic examination of Early Bronze Age axes from the north alpine region of central Europe. The original impetus was to provide a long-term perspective on the development of methods of casting and forging by extending the data base to Eneolithic/Copper Age material. In addition, by a shift east to the Carpathian Basin an attempt was made to allow for the existence of different traditions of early metalworking and compare regional trajectories into the metal ages. The approach may be termed cognitive since metallographic data, that is the examination of a metal object's microstructure, is used to reconstruct chaînes opératoires in the production of early metal objects and to compare the knowledge Eneolithic/Copper Age and Bronze Age metalworkers had gained of the different types of copper and copper-based alloys they were working. In the first instance therefore this work represents is an archaeometallurgical study in the early phases of metallurgy in parts of central and south-eastern Europe. Metallographic data from a large series of Eneolithic/Copper Age shaft-hole axes and flat axes is first published here in detail. The findings from this examination are discussed and both groups of implements are compared in terms of variation in their production parameters. This variation is related to both the technological change that came about during the Eneolithic/Copper Age and to a shift in emphasis placed on the production of shaft-hole implements and more mundane flat axes respectively. The conclusions drawn relate to genuinely archaeological questions. At least, the author hopes that they are of wider archaeological relevance and they are framed in such terms as to arise the interest of an archaeological audience beyond the sub-discipline of archaeometallurgy. There is also new data on Bronze Age material contained in this study, but most discussions related to that period draw on previously published data as well and try to integrate both data sets into a more comprehensive picture than was previously available.

German constitutionalism has gained a central place in the global comparative debate, but what underpins it remains imperfectly understood. Its distinctive conception of the rule of law and the widespread support for its powerful Constitutional Court are typically explained in one of two ways: as a story of change in reaction to National Socialism, or as the continuation of an older nineteenth-century line of constitutional thought that emphasizes the function of constitutional law as a constraint on state power. But while both narratives account for some important features, their explanatory value is ultimately overrated. This book adopts a broader comparative perspective to understand the rise of the German Constitutional Court. It interprets the particular features of German constitutional jurisprudence and the Court's strength as a reconciliation of two different legal paradigms: first, a hierarchical legal culture as described by Mirjan Damaska, building on Max Weber, as opposed to a more co-ordinate understanding of legal authority such as prevails in the United States, and secondly, the turn towards a transformative understanding of constitutionalism, as it is today most often associated with countries such as South Africa and India. Using post-war legal history and sociological and empirical research in addition to case law, this book demonstrates how German constitutionalism has harmonized the frequently conflicting demands of these two legal paradigms, resulting in a distinctive type of constitutional reasoning, at once open, pragmatic, formalist, and technical, which this book labels Value Formalism. Value Formalism, however, also comes with serious drawbacks, such as a lack of institutional self-reflection in the Court's jurisprudence and a closure of constitutional discourse to laymen, whom it excludes from the realm of legitimate interpreters.