Reinhard Bernbeck

Scalar differences: temporal rhythms and spatial patterns at Monjukli Depe, southern Turkmenistan

Abstract New investigations at the site of Monjukli Depe in southern Turkmenistan challenge traditional ideas regarding the distinction between the Neolithic and the Aeneolithic in this region. It had previously been argued that the former (the ‘Jeitun’ culture) represented an expansion of agricultural villages from Mesopotamia, while the latter (best known from the site of Anau) marked the incorporation of local Iranian elements. By integrating multi-scalar analyses of the layout, architectural design and patterning of different household activities at Monjukli Depe, a more nuanced interpretation of temporal and spatial variability of the sites successive occupations becomes possible. The new insights afforded by this approach show that the contrast between the Neolithic and Aeneolithic may not have been as clear-cut as has traditionally been believed.

A Gate to a Darker World: Excavating at the Tempelhof Airport

An archaeology of the recent past has no academically established place in the German university system. Memory politics, on the other hand, especially in connection to the Nazi period, is highly thematized in history departments but also underpins the work of grass-roots as well as more institutionalized organizations. In this chapter we discuss the genesis of an archaeological project that focuses on twentieth century remains, in particular those of the Nazi period (1933–1945), at the former Tempelhof airfield (Berlin). We explore some of the tensions and confrontations that surround such a project, especially the intertwining of archaeology, memory politics, and the varying interests with stakes in the ways this large open park in the midst of the bustling city of Berlin is used.

Revolution Fulfilled? Symbolic and Structural Archaeology , a Generation On. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by Ian Hodder. (New Directions in Archaeology Series.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007 (2nd edition); ISBN-13: 9780521035507 paperback, £18.99 & US

It is now 25 years since Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (henceforth SSA ) was first published in 1982. Why run a review feature upon a book this old? Clearly not to let readers know about its now-familiar contents. One justification is historical. Very few works have had such an effect — in archaeology, the nearest parallel comes with works such as Binford and Binfords New Perspectives in Archaeology in 1968, which laid the basis for an entire agenda of New Archaeology. Like Binford and Binfords book, SSA marked a transformation of archaeology as much as, or more than, it actually transformed the field itself. It signalled the coming of age of a coherent cohort of young, energetic scholars with a strongly defined new agenda. It breached taken-for-granted limits with bold, even flagrant ambition; it consciously invoked new intellectual frames. As much as any particular publishing event can punctuate the scholarly process with the intimation of a new direction, the publication of SSA did so. And yet, a review feature on the book would perhaps not be entirely justified as purely a historical retrospective. It is clear from the trajectory of theoretical publication in Britain (and to some extent America) over the last decades, from the content of archaeological theory courses in universities, and the vocabulary bounced around at conferences such as TAG and the SAAs, that the agenda of SSA — often termed ‘post-processualism’ — has become the dominant voice in mainstream archaeological theory. The challenger has become the establishment; the once-unthinkable has become normal science. There are many other theoretical voices, of course, but even self-proclaimed alternative movements show signs of having absorbed, osmotically, much of the theoretical agenda set by post-processualism, even if their answers differ. Twenty-five is a human generation, and perhaps the closest approach to eternity in the rapidly fermenting world of theory; the current generation of students (future colleagues, really) will have known no other paradigm. Hence, we have asked our contributors not only to comment retrospectively upon the book itself, but also prospectively, on how well its agenda has weathered the years, on what roads remain untaken, and upon where they think the future might lie.

34.99, 196 pp.

We welcome the Lampeter Archaeology Workshops (LAW) attempt to clarify the ways in which they understand relativism in post-processual archaeology and especially their distinctions among several kinds of relativism. We would like to comment on links between epistemological relativism and a particular view of history (or, more generally, the past) that the LAWs discussion raises. In particular, we draw attention to several implications of their positions, including the relative emphasis placed on the past and/or the present in archaeological interpretations, different ways of linking past and present, and the political implications of such links

Presentism and the LAW

We commend González-Ruibal et al. (above) for their well-formulated challenge to a widely held view in Anglophone archaeology. Their insistence that archaeologists must rethink their position in a radically changed political context is highly apposite, although we do not agree entirely with all of their arguments. Here, we address three principal issues.

Archaeology's "People"

In der Einfuhrung des vorliegenden Sammelbands werden die Diskussionen uber Erinnerung in der Archaologie in gegenwartige Kontexte eingeordnet, unsere Beweggrunde fur die Herausgabe dieses Buches dargelegt und einige zentrale Aspekte von Erinnerung, Raum und Identitat diskutiert. Neben einem kurzen Uberblick zur Geschichte der Gedachtnisforschung mit einem Schwerpunkt auf den archaologischen Studien werden eine Reihe von Themen angesprochen, die in den Aufsatzen des vorliegenden Bandes eine wichtige Rolle spielen. Dies betrifft unter anderem das Verhaltnis von Vergessen und Erinnern sowie Beziehungen zwischen Raum, Ort und Erinnerung. In Einklang mit unseren AutorInnen betonen wir, dass Erinnerung eine Frage der Praktiken ist, nicht nur der Denkweise. Ein weiteres Element in unseren Diskussionen ist die Verbindung von Erinnerung, Fortbestehen und Geschichte. All diese Aspekte wirken zusammen bei einem diesen zugrundeliegenden wichtigen Thema der politischen Natur verschiedener Arten der Erinnerung.

Mapping Memory, Space and Conflict

Topoi research group B-4 Space – Identity – Locality focuses its research on the interconnections between knowledge, space and identities. A multiplicity of sources – texts, images, architecture and objects – are analyzed both in their historical context and for their historiographic value. Following a brief description of the projects, key concepts of knowledge, space and identity are outlined as they relate to our specific research themes. We use ‘trialectics’ to emphasize that knowledge, space and identity constitute and influence each other. Concrete configurations of this constantly changing interplay of factors are illustrated by two case studies – the ritual compositions from Kizzuwatna (present southern Turkey) and the coin hoard of Krepost (present Bulgaria).

The Trialectics of Knowledge, Space and Identity in Ancient Civilizations and in the Study of Antiquity

uer seitrag entwickelt eine sestimmung des Zusammenhangs von Technik und Wissen im Rahmen der yabermas’schen Theorie des kommunikativen yandelns, wobei der Unterschied zwischen praktischem und diskursivem Wissen im Mittelpunkt steht. rls znstrumentarium zur rnalyse historisch spezifischer wälle technischen yandelns st2tze ich mich auf die rnwendung von ,Operationsketten‘ und wende sie auf das Verzieren von sronzeund Kupferobjekten an. yierzu dienen zwei seispiele, das eine ethnoarchäologisch und aus der heutigen S2dost-T2rkei, das andere archäologisch und aus dem eisenzeitlichen Urartu in Ost-rnatolien. uie rnalyse ergibt in beiden wällen, dass praktisches Wissen in worm von rugenmaß im rblauf der Produktion eine wichtige Rolle spielt. Konsequenzen f2r die Strukturierung der technischen Kooperation werden erörtert.

Zugänge zu technologischem Wissen und Wissenstechniken

One of the major archaeological museums, the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, serves as an example to discuss present problems of museology. I argue that the development of museums has to be analysed from a combination of perspectives, including an historical one, that of visitors and of museum staff. In a first section, the paper outlines the history of the Pergamon Museum, including an institutional history and the larger socio-political framework. To highlight the range of possibilities of understanding, I give two readings of the museum from the viewpoints of differently oriented visitors, one colonialist, the other postmodern. I then consider current debates among curators and distinguish between two main exhibition strategies, one pragmatist, the other purist. Finally, I discuss the larger framework in which museums exist, which shows their problematic status. Using critical theorys distinction between culture industry and affirmative (elite) culture, I show that the Pergatnon and other museums survive today only through an uneasy compromise between these two extreme poles of culture.