Vera Egbers

This paper introduces a series of case studies on the relation between subalternity and spatial configurations in archaeology and related fields. It discusses the origins of the notion of the subaltern and connects it to different conceptualizations of space and spatiality. Questions about the possibility for the subaltern to produce their own spaces  are  raised,  as  well  as  present  possibilities  and  impossibilities  for  archaeologists  and  other  social  science  researchers to identify and interpret such spatialities. Emphasis is placed on how various examples from both ar-chaeology and cultural anthropology try to overcome the paradoxical nature of elaborating on people who remain largely if not entirely invisible to traditional procedures of academic research.

As archaeologists, we have to deal with the dead, and as David Clarke once said, we like to keep our archaeology dead. From an epistemological perspective, alienation from the dead seems almost inevitable; otherwise, we would only project today's conditions onto the past. Therefore, the past must be, and must remain, a foreign country. These alienating processes have ethical implications, however, especially when it comes to the study of human remains. In this article, we analyze the structures within the scientific discipline of archaeology that normalize practices, such as the labeling of human bone material during excavations and the object-like display of skeletons in museums. We argue that archaeologists have an-often rejected-ethical responsibility towards subjects from the past. We, therefore, seek to open up a debate concerning alternative strategies for the treatment of the dead.

In a 2017 article, Holen and colleagues reported evidence for a 130 000-year-old archaeological site in California. Acceptance of the site would overturn current understanding of global human migrations. The authors here consider Holen et al.'s conclusions through critical evaluation of their replicative experiments. Drawing on best practice in experimental archaeology, and paying particular attention to the authors' chain of inference, Magnani et al. suggest that to argue convincingly for an early human presence at the Cer-utti Mastodon site, Holen et al. must improve their analogical foundations, test alternative hypotheses, increase experimental control and quantify their results.

(weitere Autor*innen: Stephanie Merten, Martin Renger)
Trotz des Engagements einzelner Vereine, Arbeitsgemeinschaften und Forschender hat sich eine umfassende Diskussion zu einer Ethik der Archäologie noch nicht durchgesetzt. Zwar gibt es mittlerweile einige Ethikrichtlinien, diese fokussieren jedoch meist einseitig auf bestimmte ethische Themenfelder. Zudem neigen Ethikrichtlinien dazu, best practices anzubieten und dadurch die Grundsatzdiskussionen dahinter unsichtbar werden zu lassen. Ethik braucht aber gerade eine lebendige Diskussion, die nicht abreißen darf. Vom 6. bis 7. November 2015 fand daher in Kassel ein Workshop statt, um wichtige Diskussionslinien für eine Grundsatzdiskussion zu identifizieren und vor allem ein Verständnis für ethische Fragen und Probleme auch bereits beim wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchs zu verankern. Unser Paper trägt die qualitativ und quantitativ sehr unterschiedlichen Positionen zusammen und stellt sie damit für einen weiteren wissenschaftlichen Austausch zur Diskussion.

Despite the commitment of individual associations, working groups, and researchers, a comprehensive discussion on the ethics of archaeology has not yet been established. Although there are different codes of ethics, they focus almost unilaterally on specific ethical topics. While codes of ethics tend to offer best practices and guidelines, at the same time they make the foundational discussions behind them invisible. Ethics, however, require a lively discussion that does not break down, but is rather continuous. From the 6th to 7th of November 2015, a workshop was held in Kassel in order to identify important lines of discussion for a foundational discussion about ethics in archaeology and, above all, to anchor an understanding of ethical issues and problems within younger academics. Our paper brings together qualitatively and quantitatively different positions on these ethical issues and, thus, presents them for further scientific exchange and discussion.

Immer wieder sehen sich Studierende mit hohen Kongresskosten konfrontiert. Durch diesen Umstand entwickelte sich auf dem Deutschen Archäologiekongress 2014 in Berlin in der Sektion Theorie eine Diskussion, die im DASV fortgesetzt wurde. Aus der Diskussion entstand dieser offene Brief, der sich an alle potentiellen VeranstalterInnen wissenschaftlicher Kongresse richtet.

Als Archäolog*innen setzen wir uns ständig mit den Toten der Vergangenheit auseinander. Und im Gegensatz zur Ethnoarchäologie halten wir unsere Archäologie gerne für tot, wie David Clarke einmal sagte. Einerseits erscheint aus erkenntnistheoretischer Sicht eine epistemologische Entfremdung von den Toten fast unvermeidlich, da wir sonst lediglich die heutigen Bedingungen mit all ihren Problemen rückprojizieren würden. Deshalb muss die Vergangenheit ein „foreign country“ sein und bleiben (können). Aber Entfremdung hat neben epistemologischen auch ethische Implikationen, besonders wenn es um das Studium menschlicher Überreste geht. In unserem Vortrag analysieren wir die Strukturen innerhalb der wissenschaftlichen Disziplin Archäologie, die Praktiken wie die Markierung von menschlichem Knochenmaterial während der Ausgrabung oder die objekthafte Darstellung von Skeletten in Museen normalisieren. Wir argumentieren, dass Archäolog*innen eine ethische Verantwortung gegenüber früheren Subjekten oft leugnen und wollen eine Debatte über alternative Strategien in der Behandlung von Toten eröffnen.

As Archaeologists we have to deal with the dead. And we like to keep our archeology dead, as David Clarke once said. From an epistemological perspective, alienation from the dead seems an inevitable necessity. Otherwise, we would only retroject today’s conditions. Therefore, the past must be and must remain a foreign country! There are a large number of strategies and practices of alienation which are already socialized in archaeological education. But do we have the right to put the deads’ mortal remains on display in a museum after excavating tombs? Or to number their bones and put them in storage in archival cardboard boxes? From an ethical perspective, alienation from the past dead is an othering in the sense of Johannes Fabian and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Past subjects are not only dead but transformed into objects. Ðrecisely because archeology is a science that deals with past people and affects current people, actors should not shy away from their ethical responsibility. Therefore, it is all the more surprising that in the German-speaking world as well as other European countries there is hardly any discussion about the connection between archeology and ethics. This is why in November 2015 the Forum Kritische Archäologie (FKA, Critical Archeology Forum) , Theorien in der Archäologie (TidA, Theories in Archeology) and the Forum Archäologie in der Gesellschaft (FaiG, Forum Archeology in Society) initiated a joint workshop in Kassel, Germany. Our goal was the bundling of previous debates, as well as exploring the topic in an up-to-date discussion. Ðn our lecture, we want to sum up our arguments, present some results and leave open questions to discussion. We will draw attention to our handling of ancient subjects. Is the fact that they have been dead for a long time an excuse to reduce them to bits of archaeological data? Or are there alternatives? Is there a “denial of subjectness” or can objects be given the opportunity to become subjects (again)?

Gerade weil Archäologie eine Wissenschaft ist, die sich mit vergangenen Menschen befasst und gegenwärtige Menschen beeinflusst, sollten Akteur_innen die Auseinandersetzung mit ihrer ethischen Verantwortung nicht scheuen. Daher ist es umso verwunderlicher, dass es im deutschsprachigen Raum bisher kaum Diskussionen über den Zusammenhang von Archäologie und Ethik gab. Dies möchten wir ändern.

Am 6. und 7. November 2015 veranstalten FkA, TidA und FAiG einen Workshop, auf dem Studierende und Lehrende archäologischer Fächer ihre Interessen, Meinungen und Standpunkte einbringen können. Verschiedene Themen und Perspektiven zu Ethik werden in Gruppen besprochen und gemeinsam offen diskutiert. Die Ergebnisse des Workshops können in die Fächer weitergetragen werden und sollen zu weiterer anhaltender Diskussion anregen.

Soviet archaeological research in southern Turkmenistan revealed a series of small Late Neolithic and Aeneolithic villages strung along the streams that emerge from the Kopet Dag and water the narrow foothill zone separating the mountains from the Kara Kum desert. A commonly accepted premise of their work was that these communities garnered their technological knowledge if not their populations from regions to the south and west in present-day Iran.

Since 2010 we have reinvestigated one of these sites, the small Late Neolithic (ca. 6200-5600 BCE) and early Aeneolithic (ca. 4800-4350 BCE) village of Monjukli Depe. Our research examines microhistories of cultural techniques as a source of insights into long-term and spatially extensive change as well as internal variations and similarities in material practices. This volume presents results of this work. A Bayesian modeling of 14C dates demonstrates a long hiatus between the Neolithic and Aeneolithic strata of the site as well as a hitherto unattested very early Aeneolithic phase (“Meana Horizon”). A sequence of densely built, well preserved Aeneolithic houses exhibits marked similarities to earlier Neolithic architecture in the region. Despite overall standardized plans, the houses reveal significant variations in internal features and practices. Similar flexibility within a set of common dispositions is evident in burial practices. Very limited quantities of pottery offer a stark contrast to the frequent occurrence of spindle whorls, indicating a substantial production of thread, and to a large and varied assemblage of clay tokens. A wide variety of fire installations attests to routinized handling of fire, which did not prevent at least one building from succumbing to a conflagration. Animal herding was heavily based on sheep and goats, while cattle figured prominently in feasts.

The Meana tradition at Monjukli Depe exhibits significant structural similarities to other early village societies in Western Asia and will make this volume of interest to scholars working on similar times and contexts.

This book is a multivocal and heartfelt “Thank You!” present to Susan Pollock on her 65th birthday. In each of the 46 contributions the 63 authors from West and Central AsiaAmerica and Europs celebrate Susan Pollock as a multi-facetted and brilliant scholar and colleague, as a devoted and outstanding teacher and as an empathetic mentor. The range of topics covered in the articles spans from the first occurrence of Homo sapiens on the Iranian Highland, to the relation of violence and epidemics in North America, to the research of the underrepresentation of female scholars in a male dominated Publikationslandschaft, as well as the role of politics in archaeological practice. Together the authors present the diversity of archaeological practice neither limited by time and space, nor by methodical conventions.
The contributions are organized in three chapters. The first chapter „Taking a Closer Look…“ brings together in-depth studies of prehistoric communities and object analyses. which offer a plethora of different approaches to the past. The second chapter„… While Keeping the Big Picture“ offers contributions  of larger scale, in time and geographically, of migrations, prehistoric economies, conflicts within communities and societies, as well as wars between different groups. The closing chapter „Questioning the Discipline“ frames methodological questions, scrutinizes current discourses in archaeologies and the specificities and problems ranging from decolonization to the role of women in archaeological disciplines. The chapters are interlocked with personal anecdotes and essays, chronicling the authors’ experiences they shared with Susan at different times in her career.
A big “Thank You!” from 63 authors in 46 contributions to Susan Pollock for collaborating in joint projects and her manifold support  which shaped them  into self-determined scholars.