Books by Kerstin P. Hofmann
"This thesis researches the categorical distinction between „living“ and „dead“ as well as the tr... more "This thesis researches the categorical distinction between „living“ and „dead“ as well as the transition from one to the other which is expressed in a symbolic way through funerary rites. In addition, the text focuses on the ways of dealing with mortality and the deceased in general, while recognizing natural and cultural boundaries. Early to Middle Bronze Age cremation burials as well as exemplary Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age burial grounds within the Elbe-Weser-Triangle serve as material base for the research presented here. This region is defined by natural borders and is especially interesting as an area where several distinct local and supraregional cultural groups came into contact.
Following a discourse on the research history and an extensive source criticism allow for a verification of the interpretations given later on. The cognitive identity of the subject of prehistoric archaeology is determined as a part of the historical sciences which, however, depends to a large degree on the cooperation with natural sciences. It can only improve human self-knowledge as a part of an anthropology which understands its mission in an encompassing human science. A definition and discussion of the related pair of terms „continuity“ and „change“ will be followed by some relevant discoveries from both semiotics and ritual studies which are important for understanding funerary rites.
Within the prolegomena for a thanato-archaeology the meta-concept of anthropology as discussed before will be specified using thanatology as an example. Death as biological fact as well as a cultural construct will be looked at and the relationship of the living with death and the deceased will be examined. This part is followed by an introduction into the methods and discoveries within thanatological research as done by various branches of science – psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology and history. A discussion of how archaeologists construct the way people dealt with death and the deceased leads to a demonstration of the difficulties inherent in archaeological sources. The history of burial archaeology shows that until now, socio-historical questions dominated research and that eclectically selected results from ethnological research and historical sources were used in interpreting archaeological discoveries. From a semiotic point of view, graves and burial sites will be described as „cultural texts“, followed by the presentation of various aspects of interpretation.
Keeping the previous subject matter in mind, the empirical basis of the present work will be presented, structured according to the semiotic dimensions of burials.
Cemeteries are separated from the rest of cultural space. Despite the shift from bodily interment to cremation, there is continuity in the use of burial sites.
The features within the ground are most important for the construction of rituals. In addition to the burials themselves – shapes, types, construction – the so called „secondary features of funerary rites“ need to be taken into account. For burials dating into the Early to Middle Bronze Age it is not possible to define any firm rules where the construction and accessories of graves are concerned. A detailed analysis of the urn graves of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age shows that there seems to have existed a general idea of how to carry out a cremation burial by then. Looking more closely, it also becomes obvious that those seemingly so similar graves actually show a high variability in the respective combination of the burial construction options. “Secondary features” on the burial grounds are primarly fire- and ashpits, as well as layers of cobblestones.
It is important to analyse finds according to their function within the framework of funerary ritual. While ceramics only play a marginal role in Early to Middle Bronze Age, they dominate grave accessories in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Through the course of time, metal grave goods are diminished in quality and quantity.
Shape, colour or decoration of grave accessories only rarely allows archaeologists to draw conclusions about their symbolic meanings.
On the basis of the theoretical and methodological discussions, as well as the presentation of finds and soil features, the author continues with a culture-historical interpretation.
The shift from bodily interment to cremation can be described as a process of innovation. Following a long optional phase where cremation was possible, in the Middle Bronze Age a collective decision for cremation was made, probably inspired through contact with foreign people. The finds and features presented do not follow an assumed logical evolutionary series from strewing cremains in coffins with full body-length via the gradual reduction of the grave space all the way down to an urn grave. Quite to the contrary, cremains were deposited in ceramic vessels in earlier times. The introduction of cremation does not seem to be the result of a sudden, radical shift in religion.
The change from the funerary rites in the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age takes a continuous course. Burial sites from the Late Bronze Age were kept in use. Cremation burial was still the way to bury the dead. Even so, a different way of treating the burned bones before deposition seems to result in a higher percentage of graves with pyre remains. For the shape of the tombs themselves, urn mounds seem to have played a larger role. The number and variety of grave goods are reduced, in exchange for more pyre goods.
The construction of aspects of funerary rites which follows the findings at the burial sites may be possible by including results of other scientific fields. The discovered graves are most likely primary burials. In the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age the obligatory cremation of the body took place in a different location than the burial itself. The bones were carefully picked from the extinguished pyre and afterwards deposited in the ground within a ceramic vessel. At times, a gift, very rarely several, were added to the urn as grave good(s). In some cases, rock tools or fragments were used in grave constructions. It is possible to assume that a burial took at least two days. A certain amount of maintenance of the graves, as well as the repeated use of fire-pits points to repetitive rites which were independent of a specific burial. Unfortunately, hoards of the selected region do not offer concrete evidence for death rituals, as there is no proof for a theory of death treasures, as well as no proof for a connection between the introduction of cremation burials and hoard customs.
Archaeologists move to a higher level of interpretation when trying to draw conclusions from the constructed funerary rites to the relationship a society has with death, the dead and the post mortem. It is possible to follow different paths of interpretation which illustrate different aspects. Death was public. It was at the same time familiar and foreign. Within the Elbe-Weser-Triangle, during the Bronze and Early Iron Age death was most likely the occasion for a transformation process which was accompanied by rituals. The funerary rites helped the survivors to deal with a critical situation, to gain identity and grounding, as well as the opportunity to grieve. For the dead, the ritual most likely ensured a transition into a consecutive world which was constructed prospectively through an extrapolation of the current environment and the past. The meaning of cremation, which most likely did not express a „dematerialization“ of the deceased but rather a transition into a different status, grew through the course of time. While there are indications for memorial ceremonies, there is no evidence for an ancestral cult.
The attempt to infer regionally defined cultural identities of burial societies and individuals from the funerary rites which manifested in the graves was only partially successful. It seems that the whole [region examined fell under the influence of the Nordic Bronze Age throughout the Late Bronze Age, the southern border of which will thus have to be redrawn further south. In addition, contacts with the Lausitz Culture and the Urnfield Culture of southern Germany can be noted. Regional differences in the funerary rites could not be detected. The only exception is the area around Stade which does not show any finds on several maps of distribution. Foreign women and foreign men could only be tentatively identified for the transitional period between the Early and Midle Bronze Age through finding imported goods.
The social structure of the societies of the Bronze and Early Iron Ages was and is the subject of much controversial discussion. The only base for any statements about the societies of the Elbe-Weser-Triangle are the burial sites, of which unfortunately only one has been examined anthropologically so far. The population which probably was spread out in single farmsteads and hamlets was most likely organized in an egalitarian society. For the stratification of the burying society, age played the most important role. There are rare indications for a division of labour. In addition, there seems to be a difference between the burying societies, considering the quality and quantity of the bronze grave goods.
Even though the potential of the evolved concept of thanatoarchaeology could only be presented in passing, considering the scope of the thesis, it already shows that it can yield new discoveries about the ritual treatment of death and the dead even from such an intractable collection of findings and features as the cremation graves of the Bronze and Iron Ages in northern Germany."
Edited Volumes by Kerstin P. Hofmann
The European Neolithic is characterized by a variety of practices for dealing with human remains.... more The European Neolithic is characterized by a variety of practices for dealing with human remains. In Central European Neolithic studies, the archaeological discourse on humans, bodies and death has traditionally dealt with finds of inhumations. This is not least due to dominant Western conceptions of death involving the deposition of the intact body at one, often delimited, place. Recently, focus has been drawn to the depositions of fragmented and even manipulated human remains, not least through an increasing amount of new archaeological evidence, which challenges traditional archaeological terms, concepts and research practices. The present volume integrates theoretical perspectives on the meaning of the human body and the perception of the transformation from life to death in as much as they can be studied from archaeological finds such as burials and depositions of human remains, with a special focus on Neolithic Central Europe. The collection of papers, the result of a session at a conference in Würzburg 2019, brings together articles with theoretical approaches, as well as contributions which deal with different areas and Neolithic sub-periods, such as the Linear Pottery culture, the Funnel Beaker Culture and the sub-alpine Late Neolithic, and includes prominent find complexes. These are framed by essays that critically examine archaeological research on the handling of death and the dead, and a summary overview of the contributions to the volume.
Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 27, 2023
Welche Spuren hinterlassen vergangene Kulturen, Gemeinschaften und soziale Gruppen? Wer sind die ... more Welche Spuren hinterlassen vergangene Kulturen, Gemeinschaften und soziale Gruppen? Wer sind die historischen Akteure, die uns durch Texte, Bilder und Dinge überliefert werden? Wie stehen wir heute zu diesen in Beziehung? Die Suche nach Identitäten spielte für die Altertumswissenschaften von Beginn an eine große Rolle, auch wenn der Begriff der Identität sich erst in der zweiten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts langsam als mehr oder minder reflektierter Terminus durchsetzte. Obwohl immer wieder der Nutzen des Identitätskonzeptes in Frage gestellt wird, bleiben Identitäten und ihre Erforschung dennoch ein zentrales und hochaktuelles Thema. Die Beiträge in diesem Band wollen klären, ob und wie dieses Konzept in den Altertumswissenschaften für konkrete Untersuchungen zu ‚übersetzen‘ ist und welche Implikationen damit einhergehen. Dabei beleuchten sie auch, welche Rolle die Altertumswissenschaften und ihre Praktiken bei modernen Identitätskonstituierungen einnehmen. Neben Theorien, Konzepten und Zugängen werden in diesem Band die Wechselspiele zwischen Identität und Wissen, Raum sowie Repräsentation inter- und transdisziplinär untersucht. Archäologisch-historische Perspektiven auf Identität werden daher ergänzt durch Beiträge aus der Philosophie, Ethnologie und Humangeographie. So werden nicht nur verschiedene mit Identitätskonstituierungen und der Identitätsforschung einhergehende Herausforderungen angesprochen, sondern auch mit Identitäts(re)konstruktionen verbundene Praktiken und Produkte untersucht. Das Spektrum reicht dabei von Ritualen und Narrativen über materielle Kultur sowie bildliche und textliche Darstellungen bis hin zu Raumbezügen, Verbreitungskarten und der Zirkulation von Wissen.
Wie lebten frühere Menschen in Europa? Welche Spuren haben sie hinterlassen? Der großformatige Pr... more Wie lebten frühere Menschen in Europa? Welche Spuren haben sie hinterlassen? Der großformatige Prachtband bietet einen Überblick über Archäologie und Geschichte in Europa vom Auftreten der ersten Menschen bis heute. Aktuellste Funde und Grabungsergebnisse sind verständlich dargelegt und mit über 500 Fotos, Karten und Zeichnungen eindrücklich illustriert. Die Autoren des Werkes spannen dabei den Bogen von der Altsteinzeit (vor ca. 800.000 Jahren) über Antike und Mittelalter, bis zur Industriellen Revolution und ins 21. Jahrhundert. Dem Leser öffnet sich so ein großes historisches Panorama, das im Blick zurück hilft, auch aktuelle Entwicklungen und Ereignisse wie weltweite Vernetzung, Migration und Klimawandel sowie Innovationen und Krisen besser einordnen zu können.
Herausgegeben von Eszter Bánffy, Kerstin P. Hofmann, Philipp von Rummel. 2019. Etwa 520 S. mit über 500 farb. Abb., Grafiken und Karten, Zeitleiste, Bibliogr. und Glossar, 24 x 28 cm, geb. mit SU. wbg Theiss, Darmstadt.
Berlin Studies of the Ancient World , 2018
Die (Re-)Konstruktion und räumliche Situierung kollektiver Identitäten stellt einen zentralen Bes... more Die (Re-)Konstruktion und räumliche Situierung kollektiver Identitäten stellt einen zentralen Bestandteil altertumswissenschaftlicher Praxis dar. Doch obwohl Karten als Analyseinstrument und Darstellungsmethode eine wesentliche Rolle spielen, sind ihre Implikationen und Effekte bislang nur unzureichend vergleichend untersucht. Dabei hat man in den Altertumswissenschaften nicht nur immer wieder versucht, geographische Informationen über die Herkunft und Verbreitung von Sprachen, Artefakten, Völkern oder Kulturen narrativ darzustellen, sondern eben auch kartogra-phisch zu fixieren. Solche kartographischen Identitätskonstruktionen können als direkte oder auch indizielle Erfassung historischer Handlungsträger verstanden werden. So gibt es Karten, auf denen etwa Völker oder Sprachgruppen unmittelbar geographisch situiert werden; andere Karten geben lediglich die geographische Verteilung bestimmter Merkmale (linguistische Charakteristika, materielle Objekte etc.) wieder, die als Hinweis auf die Präsenz oder gar Handlungen kollektiver Identitäten angesehen werden. In diesem Sammelband werden Kartierungspraktiken aus unterschiedlichen fachlichen Perspektiven in ihren verschiedenen Ausprägungen und Transformationen kritisch beleuchtet.
Berlin Studies of the Ancient World, 2018
Die sozial- und kulturwissenschaftliche Bewertung der Dinge, ihres epistemischen Status sowie ihr... more Die sozial- und kulturwissenschaftliche Bewertung der Dinge, ihres epistemischen Status sowie ihres Stellenwerts im Rahmen sozialer Praktiken und damit für das Soziale insgesamt hat in den letzten drei Jahrzehnten eine bemerkenswerte Dynamik entfaltet und eine radikale theoretische Weiterentwicklung vollzogen. In der aktuellen theoretischen Debatte über die Dinge wird dabei insbesondere die Variabilität und Instabilität der sozialen Praxis sowie die ‘Ambivalenz der Dinge’ betont. Objektepistemologien widmen sich der Frage, wie genau multiple und variable Objektidentitäten in der epistemischen Praxis entstehen und wie sie ihrerseits auf diese Praxis zurückwirken. Handlungsoptionen an, mit oder infolge von Dingen besitzen jedoch stets auch eine soziale, wirtschaftliche, politische sowie eine ethische Dimension, die ebenfalls wissensbasiert ist und deren Prämissen es gleichermaßen zu klären gilt.
Die Texte des vorliegenden Bandes stellen den Versuch dar, das gegenseitige Abhängigkeitsverhältnis zwischen Dingen und Wissen aufzudecken und in verschiedenen Erscheinungsformen zu analysieren. Dadurch umreißen sie den transdisziplinären Forschungsraum der Objektepistemologien und stellen sein wissenschaftliches Potential unter Beweis.
How do societies remember their past? And how did they do so before the age of computers, printin... more How do societies remember their past? And how did they do so before the age of computers, printing, writing? This book takes stock of earlier work on memory in the fields of history and the social sciences. Our collection also takes a new look at how past and present social groups have memorialized events and rendered them durable through materializations: contributors ask how processes and incidents perceived as negative and disruptive are nonetheless constitutive of group identities. Papers also contrast the monumentalizing treatment given to singular events imbued with a hegemonic meaning to more localized, diverse memory places and networks. As case studies show, such memory scapes invite divergent, multivocal and subversive narratives. Various kinds of these imagined geographies lend themselves to practices of manipulation, preservation and control. The temporal scope of the volume reaches from the late Neolithic to the recent past, resulting in a long-term and multi-focal perspective that demonstrates how the perception of past events changes, acquires new layers and is molded by different groups at different points in time. As several contributions show, these manipulations of the past do not always produce the anticipated results, however. Attempts at “post-factual history” are countered by the socially distributed, but spatially and materially anchored nature of the very process of memorialization.
Wanderungsbewegungen gehören zu den zentralen Gegenständen historischer Forschung und Darstellung... more Wanderungsbewegungen gehören zu den zentralen Gegenständen historischer Forschung und Darstellung. Sie fungieren als historische Wegmarken oder Epochenschwellen und spielen eine zentrale Rolle bei der (Trans-) Formation von Räumen und kollektiven Identitäten. Dabei weisen moderne wissenschaftliche Darstellungen von Wanderungsbewegungen aus unterschiedlichen Kontexten, Zeiten und Räumen erstaunliche inhaltliche Ähnlichkeiten und analoge Erzählmuster auf, die sich keineswegs durch vermeintliche Parallelen in den dargestellten Ereignissen erklären lassen. Vielmehr scheinen diese ihren Hintergrund in der Art und Weise zu haben, wie Migrationen dargestellt und erzählt werden. Die Beiträge des vorliegenden Bandes decken ein breites Spektrum vornehmlich altertumswissenschaftlicher Disziplinen ab und vermögen zu zeigen, dass noch die jüngere Wanderungshistoriographie tradierten Erzählmustern folgt, die teilweise bis in die Antike zurückreichen.
English:
The primary way of generating knowledge in archaeology is through its collections and ar... more English:
The primary way of generating knowledge in archaeology is through its collections and archives of objects of past cultures and societies – as was and still is stated quite often. But archaeology has been struggling with the sheer masses of objects since, which steadily grow because of excavations.
The following seventeen articles were contributions to a conference in Berlin in 2013, which was organized by the German Association for Theories in Archaeology. This edited volume focuses on two general topics. The essays in the first part of the volume treat the virulent problem of objects stockpiling in collections. The history as well as the psychology of collecting are addressed. There is a focus on the development which began with a passionate, subjective “delight in collecting” but which moved towards a regulated, institutionalized “burden of collecting”. However, alternatives which lead to a self-conscious practice of de-collecting, are discussed as well.
The contributions in the second part of the volume deal with the established empirical-antiquarian research in the light of the material turn and also show the complexity of the relationship between humans and objects. Last but not least, this volume discusses current attempts at the understanding of objects in other disciplines from an archaeological perspective.
German:
Primäres Erkenntnismittel der Archäologie sind ihre Sammlungen und Archive an Objekten vergangener Kulturen und Gesellschaften. Diese Aussage war und ist auch heute noch oft zu hören. Doch inzwischen leidet die Archäologie zunehmend unter diesen Objekt-Massen, die sie zudem durch Ausgrabungen ständig vermehrt.
Die hier vorgelegten siebzehn Beiträge entstanden im Zuge einer von der Arbeitsgemeinschaft „Theorien in der Archäologie“ organisierten Tagung 2013 in Berlin. Der Sammelband hat zwei Schwerpunkte. Die Texte im ersten Teil des Bandes beschäftigen sich mit dem virulenten Problem der
Massendinghaltung in Sammlungen.
In den Blick genommen werden gleichermaßen Geschichte und Psychologie des Sammelns. Die Entwicklung von einer leidenschaftlichen, subjektiven „Sammellust“ zu einer geregelten, institutionellen „Sammellast” steht dabei im Zentrum des Interesses. Aber auch Alternativen werden diskutiert, die zu einer reflektierten Praxis des Ent-Sammelns führen können.
Die Beiträge im zweiten Teil des Buches diskutieren vor dem Hintergrund des material turn kritisch die etablierte empirisch-antiquarische Forschungspraxis der Archäologie und machen die Komplexität der Mensch-Ding-Beziehungen sichtbar. Nicht zuletzt setzt sich der Band aus archäologischer Perspektive auch kritisch mit gegenwärtigen Versuchen des Dingverständnisses anderer Disziplinen auseinander.
Gedruckt mit Unterstützung des Exzellenzclusters 264 "Topoi". Topoi-Logo CMYK (minimale Breite im... more Gedruckt mit Unterstützung des Exzellenzclusters 264 "Topoi". Topoi-Logo CMYK (minimale Breite im Druck: 4 cm) Topoi-Logo Graustufen (minimale Breite im Druck: 4 cm) Logo-Variante für Verkleinerungen unterhalb einer Breite von 4 cm. (Flyer u.ä.) Umschlagabbildung: Der große Runenstein König Harald Blauzahns in Jelling. Foto: Anne Pedersen. Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. Alle Rechte, auch die des auszugsweisen Nachdrucks, der fotomechanischen Wiedergabe und der Übersetzung, vorbehalten. Dies betrifft auch die Vervielfältigung und Übertragung einzelner Textabschnitte, Zeichnungen oder Bilder durch alle Verfahren wie Speicherung und Übertragung auf Papier, Transparente, Filme, Bänder, Platten und andere Medien, soweit es nicht § § 53 und 54 UrhG ausdrücklich gestatten.
Forum Kritische Archäologie 3 (2014), 2014
Papers by Kerstin P. Hofmann
Martin Renger - Stefan Schreiber - Alexander Veling (Hrsg.), Theorie | Archäologie | Reflexion 1: Kontroversen und Ansätze im deutschsprachigen Diskurs. Theoriedenken in der Archäologie 1 (Heidelberg: Propylaeum 2023), 2023
What is your name?” is not a question that prehistoric archaeologists can ask a person they have... more What is your name?” is not a question that prehistoric archaeologists can ask a person they have excavated. Rather, the ‘human remains’ are carefully documented, numbered, identified, and archived as objects. In rare cases, however, the archaeological context confronts us with an individual who seems to be looking at us from the past, because of his or her special preservation (e.g. as a bog or an ice corpse). In such cases, the finders sometimes feel compelled to give that individual a name – a new name due
to their lack of knowledge of the original name, if there ever was one. Ultimately, however, most of the deceased are and remain objects for the current researchers, depersonalised remains that are desubjectivised even further in the context of archaeological documentation practices. For a few years now, bioarchaeological approaches have made it possible to shed a completely new light on the lives of these anonymous bones, allowing us to learn about the lives of these individuals in an unprecedented way. A human being with individual traits begins to emerge from the bones – a human being, however, whom we continue to list under a catalogue number
and objectively refer to in the accompanying publication as “find site, grave number” (or using similar codes). But does this do justice to the deceased? Shouldn’t the new potential for gaining knowledge about past individual lives force us to consider giving a name to these individuals? Or would that pose the danger of nostrification (i.e. of making the other from a distant and alien past too much our own)? Where does the appreciation of the remains as human beings begin and where do we cross the thin line to appropriation? In our contribution we discuss current naming practices, their consequences on the perception of human remains, the results of an online survey, and future developments resulting from novel approaches to gaining knowledge. We
hope to raise awareness for a reflective approach toward naming practices in
archaeology and the descriptions and narratives that commonly accompany
these naming practices.
Renger, Martin, Schreiber, Stefan und Veling, Alexander (Hrsg.): Theorie | Archäologie | Reflexion 1: Kontroversen und Ansätze im deutschsprachigen Diskurs, Heidelberg: Propylaeum, 2023 (Theoriedenken in der Archäologie, Band 1). , 2023
The future of theory and archaeology has been much discussed in
recent years, not only on the o... more The future of theory and archaeology has been much discussed in
recent years, not only on the occasion of anniversaries, but also in view of
structural changes in the research landscape, including funding frameworks,
as well as the consideration of other ontologies and epistemologies, the introduction of new methods and the so-called digital turn. This paper seeks to
analyse the current state primarily of German-speaking prehistoric archaeology and to explore on this basis what theory actually is and how and where it emerges. Building on this, it will identify potential challenges, contents and
topics that will probably keep us busy in future and address what it takes in
practice for theoretical work to be productive. Finally, the paper concludes
that theories and archaeologies, and their interaction in particular, are much
more colourful and creative than their reputation suggests.
Nadia Balkowski / Isabel Hohle / Kerstin P. Hofmann / Almut Schülke (Hrsg.), Mensch - Körper - Tod. Der Umgang mit menschlichen Überresten im Neolithikum Mitteleuropas (Leiden: Sidestone 2023). , 2023
Death confronts the living with the challenges of how to deal with the material legacies of the d... more Death confronts the living with the challenges of how to deal with the material legacies of the deceased and with an ambivalent relationship between the presence and absence of the dead. Death is universal, but how we deal with death and the dead is culturally shaped – as is the study of these issues. Although burials are one of the main types of archaeological sources, (transformative) bodily practices and processes associated with death have been rarely addressed. In the introduction to this anthology, we argue for a process-oriented, contextual and praxeological consideration of the complex network of relations between human being, body and death instead of viewing the burial as a static archaeological record. First, we deal with the question of how and when boundaries are drawn between living and dead, then with transformative body practices and processes. Finally, we address the socio-spatial location of death and the dead, which takes place right in the middle of life and only sometimes brings with it a strict spatial separation of the living and the dead.
Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 27, 2023
Questions of identity arise again and again, and play(ed) an important role in ancient studies – ... more Questions of identity arise again and again, and play(ed) an important role in ancient studies – even if the term itself was not always used. Instead of searching for ancient identities, the focus of the paper and anthology is on
ancient and modern identity practices that refer to the past, or are carried out by scholars of antiquity. They are understood here as acts or repetitive processes performed in different spaces and at different times, and which constitute and transform identities. This, in turn, is accompanied by the experience, realisation and mediation of similarity and difference. After exploring central theories, concepts and approaches of ancient identity research the interrelations of identities with space, knowledge and
representation will be addressed in order to conclude by problematising the connections between ancient identities and modern identifications. The contribution of ancient studies to identity research is seen – together with
self-reflection based on the history of science – in the de-essentialisation resulting from the urgently needed historicisation of identities and their forms.
Uploads
Books by Kerstin P. Hofmann
Following a discourse on the research history and an extensive source criticism allow for a verification of the interpretations given later on. The cognitive identity of the subject of prehistoric archaeology is determined as a part of the historical sciences which, however, depends to a large degree on the cooperation with natural sciences. It can only improve human self-knowledge as a part of an anthropology which understands its mission in an encompassing human science. A definition and discussion of the related pair of terms „continuity“ and „change“ will be followed by some relevant discoveries from both semiotics and ritual studies which are important for understanding funerary rites.
Within the prolegomena for a thanato-archaeology the meta-concept of anthropology as discussed before will be specified using thanatology as an example. Death as biological fact as well as a cultural construct will be looked at and the relationship of the living with death and the deceased will be examined. This part is followed by an introduction into the methods and discoveries within thanatological research as done by various branches of science – psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology and history. A discussion of how archaeologists construct the way people dealt with death and the deceased leads to a demonstration of the difficulties inherent in archaeological sources. The history of burial archaeology shows that until now, socio-historical questions dominated research and that eclectically selected results from ethnological research and historical sources were used in interpreting archaeological discoveries. From a semiotic point of view, graves and burial sites will be described as „cultural texts“, followed by the presentation of various aspects of interpretation.
Keeping the previous subject matter in mind, the empirical basis of the present work will be presented, structured according to the semiotic dimensions of burials.
Cemeteries are separated from the rest of cultural space. Despite the shift from bodily interment to cremation, there is continuity in the use of burial sites.
The features within the ground are most important for the construction of rituals. In addition to the burials themselves – shapes, types, construction – the so called „secondary features of funerary rites“ need to be taken into account. For burials dating into the Early to Middle Bronze Age it is not possible to define any firm rules where the construction and accessories of graves are concerned. A detailed analysis of the urn graves of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age shows that there seems to have existed a general idea of how to carry out a cremation burial by then. Looking more closely, it also becomes obvious that those seemingly so similar graves actually show a high variability in the respective combination of the burial construction options. “Secondary features” on the burial grounds are primarly fire- and ashpits, as well as layers of cobblestones.
It is important to analyse finds according to their function within the framework of funerary ritual. While ceramics only play a marginal role in Early to Middle Bronze Age, they dominate grave accessories in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Through the course of time, metal grave goods are diminished in quality and quantity.
Shape, colour or decoration of grave accessories only rarely allows archaeologists to draw conclusions about their symbolic meanings.
On the basis of the theoretical and methodological discussions, as well as the presentation of finds and soil features, the author continues with a culture-historical interpretation.
The shift from bodily interment to cremation can be described as a process of innovation. Following a long optional phase where cremation was possible, in the Middle Bronze Age a collective decision for cremation was made, probably inspired through contact with foreign people. The finds and features presented do not follow an assumed logical evolutionary series from strewing cremains in coffins with full body-length via the gradual reduction of the grave space all the way down to an urn grave. Quite to the contrary, cremains were deposited in ceramic vessels in earlier times. The introduction of cremation does not seem to be the result of a sudden, radical shift in religion.
The change from the funerary rites in the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age takes a continuous course. Burial sites from the Late Bronze Age were kept in use. Cremation burial was still the way to bury the dead. Even so, a different way of treating the burned bones before deposition seems to result in a higher percentage of graves with pyre remains. For the shape of the tombs themselves, urn mounds seem to have played a larger role. The number and variety of grave goods are reduced, in exchange for more pyre goods.
The construction of aspects of funerary rites which follows the findings at the burial sites may be possible by including results of other scientific fields. The discovered graves are most likely primary burials. In the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age the obligatory cremation of the body took place in a different location than the burial itself. The bones were carefully picked from the extinguished pyre and afterwards deposited in the ground within a ceramic vessel. At times, a gift, very rarely several, were added to the urn as grave good(s). In some cases, rock tools or fragments were used in grave constructions. It is possible to assume that a burial took at least two days. A certain amount of maintenance of the graves, as well as the repeated use of fire-pits points to repetitive rites which were independent of a specific burial. Unfortunately, hoards of the selected region do not offer concrete evidence for death rituals, as there is no proof for a theory of death treasures, as well as no proof for a connection between the introduction of cremation burials and hoard customs.
Archaeologists move to a higher level of interpretation when trying to draw conclusions from the constructed funerary rites to the relationship a society has with death, the dead and the post mortem. It is possible to follow different paths of interpretation which illustrate different aspects. Death was public. It was at the same time familiar and foreign. Within the Elbe-Weser-Triangle, during the Bronze and Early Iron Age death was most likely the occasion for a transformation process which was accompanied by rituals. The funerary rites helped the survivors to deal with a critical situation, to gain identity and grounding, as well as the opportunity to grieve. For the dead, the ritual most likely ensured a transition into a consecutive world which was constructed prospectively through an extrapolation of the current environment and the past. The meaning of cremation, which most likely did not express a „dematerialization“ of the deceased but rather a transition into a different status, grew through the course of time. While there are indications for memorial ceremonies, there is no evidence for an ancestral cult.
The attempt to infer regionally defined cultural identities of burial societies and individuals from the funerary rites which manifested in the graves was only partially successful. It seems that the whole [region examined fell under the influence of the Nordic Bronze Age throughout the Late Bronze Age, the southern border of which will thus have to be redrawn further south. In addition, contacts with the Lausitz Culture and the Urnfield Culture of southern Germany can be noted. Regional differences in the funerary rites could not be detected. The only exception is the area around Stade which does not show any finds on several maps of distribution. Foreign women and foreign men could only be tentatively identified for the transitional period between the Early and Midle Bronze Age through finding imported goods.
The social structure of the societies of the Bronze and Early Iron Ages was and is the subject of much controversial discussion. The only base for any statements about the societies of the Elbe-Weser-Triangle are the burial sites, of which unfortunately only one has been examined anthropologically so far. The population which probably was spread out in single farmsteads and hamlets was most likely organized in an egalitarian society. For the stratification of the burying society, age played the most important role. There are rare indications for a division of labour. In addition, there seems to be a difference between the burying societies, considering the quality and quantity of the bronze grave goods.
Even though the potential of the evolved concept of thanatoarchaeology could only be presented in passing, considering the scope of the thesis, it already shows that it can yield new discoveries about the ritual treatment of death and the dead even from such an intractable collection of findings and features as the cremation graves of the Bronze and Iron Ages in northern Germany."
Edited Volumes by Kerstin P. Hofmann
Herausgegeben von Eszter Bánffy, Kerstin P. Hofmann, Philipp von Rummel. 2019. Etwa 520 S. mit über 500 farb. Abb., Grafiken und Karten, Zeitleiste, Bibliogr. und Glossar, 24 x 28 cm, geb. mit SU. wbg Theiss, Darmstadt.
Die Texte des vorliegenden Bandes stellen den Versuch dar, das gegenseitige Abhängigkeitsverhältnis zwischen Dingen und Wissen aufzudecken und in verschiedenen Erscheinungsformen zu analysieren. Dadurch umreißen sie den transdisziplinären Forschungsraum der Objektepistemologien und stellen sein wissenschaftliches Potential unter Beweis.
The primary way of generating knowledge in archaeology is through its collections and archives of objects of past cultures and societies – as was and still is stated quite often. But archaeology has been struggling with the sheer masses of objects since, which steadily grow because of excavations.
The following seventeen articles were contributions to a conference in Berlin in 2013, which was organized by the German Association for Theories in Archaeology. This edited volume focuses on two general topics. The essays in the first part of the volume treat the virulent problem of objects stockpiling in collections. The history as well as the psychology of collecting are addressed. There is a focus on the development which began with a passionate, subjective “delight in collecting” but which moved towards a regulated, institutionalized “burden of collecting”. However, alternatives which lead to a self-conscious practice of de-collecting, are discussed as well.
The contributions in the second part of the volume deal with the established empirical-antiquarian research in the light of the material turn and also show the complexity of the relationship between humans and objects. Last but not least, this volume discusses current attempts at the understanding of objects in other disciplines from an archaeological perspective.
German:
Primäres Erkenntnismittel der Archäologie sind ihre Sammlungen und Archive an Objekten vergangener Kulturen und Gesellschaften. Diese Aussage war und ist auch heute noch oft zu hören. Doch inzwischen leidet die Archäologie zunehmend unter diesen Objekt-Massen, die sie zudem durch Ausgrabungen ständig vermehrt.
Die hier vorgelegten siebzehn Beiträge entstanden im Zuge einer von der Arbeitsgemeinschaft „Theorien in der Archäologie“ organisierten Tagung 2013 in Berlin. Der Sammelband hat zwei Schwerpunkte. Die Texte im ersten Teil des Bandes beschäftigen sich mit dem virulenten Problem der
Massendinghaltung in Sammlungen.
In den Blick genommen werden gleichermaßen Geschichte und Psychologie des Sammelns. Die Entwicklung von einer leidenschaftlichen, subjektiven „Sammellust“ zu einer geregelten, institutionellen „Sammellast” steht dabei im Zentrum des Interesses. Aber auch Alternativen werden diskutiert, die zu einer reflektierten Praxis des Ent-Sammelns führen können.
Die Beiträge im zweiten Teil des Buches diskutieren vor dem Hintergrund des material turn kritisch die etablierte empirisch-antiquarische Forschungspraxis der Archäologie und machen die Komplexität der Mensch-Ding-Beziehungen sichtbar. Nicht zuletzt setzt sich der Band aus archäologischer Perspektive auch kritisch mit gegenwärtigen Versuchen des Dingverständnisses anderer Disziplinen auseinander.
Papers by Kerstin P. Hofmann
to their lack of knowledge of the original name, if there ever was one. Ultimately, however, most of the deceased are and remain objects for the current researchers, depersonalised remains that are desubjectivised even further in the context of archaeological documentation practices. For a few years now, bioarchaeological approaches have made it possible to shed a completely new light on the lives of these anonymous bones, allowing us to learn about the lives of these individuals in an unprecedented way. A human being with individual traits begins to emerge from the bones – a human being, however, whom we continue to list under a catalogue number
and objectively refer to in the accompanying publication as “find site, grave number” (or using similar codes). But does this do justice to the deceased? Shouldn’t the new potential for gaining knowledge about past individual lives force us to consider giving a name to these individuals? Or would that pose the danger of nostrification (i.e. of making the other from a distant and alien past too much our own)? Where does the appreciation of the remains as human beings begin and where do we cross the thin line to appropriation? In our contribution we discuss current naming practices, their consequences on the perception of human remains, the results of an online survey, and future developments resulting from novel approaches to gaining knowledge. We
hope to raise awareness for a reflective approach toward naming practices in
archaeology and the descriptions and narratives that commonly accompany
these naming practices.
recent years, not only on the occasion of anniversaries, but also in view of
structural changes in the research landscape, including funding frameworks,
as well as the consideration of other ontologies and epistemologies, the introduction of new methods and the so-called digital turn. This paper seeks to
analyse the current state primarily of German-speaking prehistoric archaeology and to explore on this basis what theory actually is and how and where it emerges. Building on this, it will identify potential challenges, contents and
topics that will probably keep us busy in future and address what it takes in
practice for theoretical work to be productive. Finally, the paper concludes
that theories and archaeologies, and their interaction in particular, are much
more colourful and creative than their reputation suggests.
ancient and modern identity practices that refer to the past, or are carried out by scholars of antiquity. They are understood here as acts or repetitive processes performed in different spaces and at different times, and which constitute and transform identities. This, in turn, is accompanied by the experience, realisation and mediation of similarity and difference. After exploring central theories, concepts and approaches of ancient identity research the interrelations of identities with space, knowledge and
representation will be addressed in order to conclude by problematising the connections between ancient identities and modern identifications. The contribution of ancient studies to identity research is seen – together with
self-reflection based on the history of science – in the de-essentialisation resulting from the urgently needed historicisation of identities and their forms.
Following a discourse on the research history and an extensive source criticism allow for a verification of the interpretations given later on. The cognitive identity of the subject of prehistoric archaeology is determined as a part of the historical sciences which, however, depends to a large degree on the cooperation with natural sciences. It can only improve human self-knowledge as a part of an anthropology which understands its mission in an encompassing human science. A definition and discussion of the related pair of terms „continuity“ and „change“ will be followed by some relevant discoveries from both semiotics and ritual studies which are important for understanding funerary rites.
Within the prolegomena for a thanato-archaeology the meta-concept of anthropology as discussed before will be specified using thanatology as an example. Death as biological fact as well as a cultural construct will be looked at and the relationship of the living with death and the deceased will be examined. This part is followed by an introduction into the methods and discoveries within thanatological research as done by various branches of science – psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology and history. A discussion of how archaeologists construct the way people dealt with death and the deceased leads to a demonstration of the difficulties inherent in archaeological sources. The history of burial archaeology shows that until now, socio-historical questions dominated research and that eclectically selected results from ethnological research and historical sources were used in interpreting archaeological discoveries. From a semiotic point of view, graves and burial sites will be described as „cultural texts“, followed by the presentation of various aspects of interpretation.
Keeping the previous subject matter in mind, the empirical basis of the present work will be presented, structured according to the semiotic dimensions of burials.
Cemeteries are separated from the rest of cultural space. Despite the shift from bodily interment to cremation, there is continuity in the use of burial sites.
The features within the ground are most important for the construction of rituals. In addition to the burials themselves – shapes, types, construction – the so called „secondary features of funerary rites“ need to be taken into account. For burials dating into the Early to Middle Bronze Age it is not possible to define any firm rules where the construction and accessories of graves are concerned. A detailed analysis of the urn graves of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age shows that there seems to have existed a general idea of how to carry out a cremation burial by then. Looking more closely, it also becomes obvious that those seemingly so similar graves actually show a high variability in the respective combination of the burial construction options. “Secondary features” on the burial grounds are primarly fire- and ashpits, as well as layers of cobblestones.
It is important to analyse finds according to their function within the framework of funerary ritual. While ceramics only play a marginal role in Early to Middle Bronze Age, they dominate grave accessories in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Through the course of time, metal grave goods are diminished in quality and quantity.
Shape, colour or decoration of grave accessories only rarely allows archaeologists to draw conclusions about their symbolic meanings.
On the basis of the theoretical and methodological discussions, as well as the presentation of finds and soil features, the author continues with a culture-historical interpretation.
The shift from bodily interment to cremation can be described as a process of innovation. Following a long optional phase where cremation was possible, in the Middle Bronze Age a collective decision for cremation was made, probably inspired through contact with foreign people. The finds and features presented do not follow an assumed logical evolutionary series from strewing cremains in coffins with full body-length via the gradual reduction of the grave space all the way down to an urn grave. Quite to the contrary, cremains were deposited in ceramic vessels in earlier times. The introduction of cremation does not seem to be the result of a sudden, radical shift in religion.
The change from the funerary rites in the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age takes a continuous course. Burial sites from the Late Bronze Age were kept in use. Cremation burial was still the way to bury the dead. Even so, a different way of treating the burned bones before deposition seems to result in a higher percentage of graves with pyre remains. For the shape of the tombs themselves, urn mounds seem to have played a larger role. The number and variety of grave goods are reduced, in exchange for more pyre goods.
The construction of aspects of funerary rites which follows the findings at the burial sites may be possible by including results of other scientific fields. The discovered graves are most likely primary burials. In the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age the obligatory cremation of the body took place in a different location than the burial itself. The bones were carefully picked from the extinguished pyre and afterwards deposited in the ground within a ceramic vessel. At times, a gift, very rarely several, were added to the urn as grave good(s). In some cases, rock tools or fragments were used in grave constructions. It is possible to assume that a burial took at least two days. A certain amount of maintenance of the graves, as well as the repeated use of fire-pits points to repetitive rites which were independent of a specific burial. Unfortunately, hoards of the selected region do not offer concrete evidence for death rituals, as there is no proof for a theory of death treasures, as well as no proof for a connection between the introduction of cremation burials and hoard customs.
Archaeologists move to a higher level of interpretation when trying to draw conclusions from the constructed funerary rites to the relationship a society has with death, the dead and the post mortem. It is possible to follow different paths of interpretation which illustrate different aspects. Death was public. It was at the same time familiar and foreign. Within the Elbe-Weser-Triangle, during the Bronze and Early Iron Age death was most likely the occasion for a transformation process which was accompanied by rituals. The funerary rites helped the survivors to deal with a critical situation, to gain identity and grounding, as well as the opportunity to grieve. For the dead, the ritual most likely ensured a transition into a consecutive world which was constructed prospectively through an extrapolation of the current environment and the past. The meaning of cremation, which most likely did not express a „dematerialization“ of the deceased but rather a transition into a different status, grew through the course of time. While there are indications for memorial ceremonies, there is no evidence for an ancestral cult.
The attempt to infer regionally defined cultural identities of burial societies and individuals from the funerary rites which manifested in the graves was only partially successful. It seems that the whole [region examined fell under the influence of the Nordic Bronze Age throughout the Late Bronze Age, the southern border of which will thus have to be redrawn further south. In addition, contacts with the Lausitz Culture and the Urnfield Culture of southern Germany can be noted. Regional differences in the funerary rites could not be detected. The only exception is the area around Stade which does not show any finds on several maps of distribution. Foreign women and foreign men could only be tentatively identified for the transitional period between the Early and Midle Bronze Age through finding imported goods.
The social structure of the societies of the Bronze and Early Iron Ages was and is the subject of much controversial discussion. The only base for any statements about the societies of the Elbe-Weser-Triangle are the burial sites, of which unfortunately only one has been examined anthropologically so far. The population which probably was spread out in single farmsteads and hamlets was most likely organized in an egalitarian society. For the stratification of the burying society, age played the most important role. There are rare indications for a division of labour. In addition, there seems to be a difference between the burying societies, considering the quality and quantity of the bronze grave goods.
Even though the potential of the evolved concept of thanatoarchaeology could only be presented in passing, considering the scope of the thesis, it already shows that it can yield new discoveries about the ritual treatment of death and the dead even from such an intractable collection of findings and features as the cremation graves of the Bronze and Iron Ages in northern Germany."
Herausgegeben von Eszter Bánffy, Kerstin P. Hofmann, Philipp von Rummel. 2019. Etwa 520 S. mit über 500 farb. Abb., Grafiken und Karten, Zeitleiste, Bibliogr. und Glossar, 24 x 28 cm, geb. mit SU. wbg Theiss, Darmstadt.
Die Texte des vorliegenden Bandes stellen den Versuch dar, das gegenseitige Abhängigkeitsverhältnis zwischen Dingen und Wissen aufzudecken und in verschiedenen Erscheinungsformen zu analysieren. Dadurch umreißen sie den transdisziplinären Forschungsraum der Objektepistemologien und stellen sein wissenschaftliches Potential unter Beweis.
The primary way of generating knowledge in archaeology is through its collections and archives of objects of past cultures and societies – as was and still is stated quite often. But archaeology has been struggling with the sheer masses of objects since, which steadily grow because of excavations.
The following seventeen articles were contributions to a conference in Berlin in 2013, which was organized by the German Association for Theories in Archaeology. This edited volume focuses on two general topics. The essays in the first part of the volume treat the virulent problem of objects stockpiling in collections. The history as well as the psychology of collecting are addressed. There is a focus on the development which began with a passionate, subjective “delight in collecting” but which moved towards a regulated, institutionalized “burden of collecting”. However, alternatives which lead to a self-conscious practice of de-collecting, are discussed as well.
The contributions in the second part of the volume deal with the established empirical-antiquarian research in the light of the material turn and also show the complexity of the relationship between humans and objects. Last but not least, this volume discusses current attempts at the understanding of objects in other disciplines from an archaeological perspective.
German:
Primäres Erkenntnismittel der Archäologie sind ihre Sammlungen und Archive an Objekten vergangener Kulturen und Gesellschaften. Diese Aussage war und ist auch heute noch oft zu hören. Doch inzwischen leidet die Archäologie zunehmend unter diesen Objekt-Massen, die sie zudem durch Ausgrabungen ständig vermehrt.
Die hier vorgelegten siebzehn Beiträge entstanden im Zuge einer von der Arbeitsgemeinschaft „Theorien in der Archäologie“ organisierten Tagung 2013 in Berlin. Der Sammelband hat zwei Schwerpunkte. Die Texte im ersten Teil des Bandes beschäftigen sich mit dem virulenten Problem der
Massendinghaltung in Sammlungen.
In den Blick genommen werden gleichermaßen Geschichte und Psychologie des Sammelns. Die Entwicklung von einer leidenschaftlichen, subjektiven „Sammellust“ zu einer geregelten, institutionellen „Sammellast” steht dabei im Zentrum des Interesses. Aber auch Alternativen werden diskutiert, die zu einer reflektierten Praxis des Ent-Sammelns führen können.
Die Beiträge im zweiten Teil des Buches diskutieren vor dem Hintergrund des material turn kritisch die etablierte empirisch-antiquarische Forschungspraxis der Archäologie und machen die Komplexität der Mensch-Ding-Beziehungen sichtbar. Nicht zuletzt setzt sich der Band aus archäologischer Perspektive auch kritisch mit gegenwärtigen Versuchen des Dingverständnisses anderer Disziplinen auseinander.
to their lack of knowledge of the original name, if there ever was one. Ultimately, however, most of the deceased are and remain objects for the current researchers, depersonalised remains that are desubjectivised even further in the context of archaeological documentation practices. For a few years now, bioarchaeological approaches have made it possible to shed a completely new light on the lives of these anonymous bones, allowing us to learn about the lives of these individuals in an unprecedented way. A human being with individual traits begins to emerge from the bones – a human being, however, whom we continue to list under a catalogue number
and objectively refer to in the accompanying publication as “find site, grave number” (or using similar codes). But does this do justice to the deceased? Shouldn’t the new potential for gaining knowledge about past individual lives force us to consider giving a name to these individuals? Or would that pose the danger of nostrification (i.e. of making the other from a distant and alien past too much our own)? Where does the appreciation of the remains as human beings begin and where do we cross the thin line to appropriation? In our contribution we discuss current naming practices, their consequences on the perception of human remains, the results of an online survey, and future developments resulting from novel approaches to gaining knowledge. We
hope to raise awareness for a reflective approach toward naming practices in
archaeology and the descriptions and narratives that commonly accompany
these naming practices.
recent years, not only on the occasion of anniversaries, but also in view of
structural changes in the research landscape, including funding frameworks,
as well as the consideration of other ontologies and epistemologies, the introduction of new methods and the so-called digital turn. This paper seeks to
analyse the current state primarily of German-speaking prehistoric archaeology and to explore on this basis what theory actually is and how and where it emerges. Building on this, it will identify potential challenges, contents and
topics that will probably keep us busy in future and address what it takes in
practice for theoretical work to be productive. Finally, the paper concludes
that theories and archaeologies, and their interaction in particular, are much
more colourful and creative than their reputation suggests.
ancient and modern identity practices that refer to the past, or are carried out by scholars of antiquity. They are understood here as acts or repetitive processes performed in different spaces and at different times, and which constitute and transform identities. This, in turn, is accompanied by the experience, realisation and mediation of similarity and difference. After exploring central theories, concepts and approaches of ancient identity research the interrelations of identities with space, knowledge and
representation will be addressed in order to conclude by problematising the connections between ancient identities and modern identifications. The contribution of ancient studies to identity research is seen – together with
self-reflection based on the history of science – in the de-essentialisation resulting from the urgently needed historicisation of identities and their forms.
of a sacred space. The Palatine is an appropriate example for this purpose, as it is considered a significant heritage site and sacred space, both in ancient and in present times. The article addresses specific practices of the (de-)sacralization of space – repeating, spatial marking, aligning, naming and mapping, reifying as well as maintaining and protecting – and discusses the possibilities but also the limitations of a praxeological approach in analyzing sacred space.
The Hallstatt/Dachstein region represents an alpine environment, where the evolution of human-environment relations can be tracked over a long time period. Recent research has focused on the impact of natural extreme events on these highly sophisticated socio-economic systems. Through this research it was possible to document the high degree of resilience of Bronze Age and Iron Age communities in the face of devastating extreme natural events such as mass movements and substantial climate change.
In this article we will address the questions of 'understanding past adaptation strategies and facing future challenges' and 'the role of archaeologists in addressing climate change', based on our longstanding research and outreach activities in the Hallstatt region.
cartography of the various classical and ancient studies from the start, binding it into a system of specific regional, disciplinary, political, and science and research policy-related constellations. This volume contains examples of the mapping of collective entities from various classical and ancient studies, and also from human geography and linguistics. In the introduction we consider the question of feedbacks in cartographic strategies for representing and identifying ancient collectives. We therefore focus on the mapping practices of classical and ancient studies from a number of perspectives: diagrammatic,
history of science and identity theory.
My paper starts with some short remarks on the etymology of Viking and the reception of Vikings in modern times. I focus on practices of naming as well as on semantic simplifications, romanticization and mythologization as constituents of the popular image of “the Vikings”. I also examine the concepts of identity and mobility on which archaeological and genetic interpretations are based. Afterwards, current issues of identity research and the problem of essentializing archaeological subjects are discussed. My focus will be on the re-naturalisation of historiographical actors. Finally, the dangers of identity politics will be addressed, which occur both outside of the academic discourse and within academia itself. Our duty is now to avoid mere battles for sovereignty of interpretation, as we experienced in the course of the introduction of radiocarbon dating. Instead, scientific and political reflexiveness as well as mutual acceptance is required to establish good ways of dealing and/or collaborating with each other.
Selected References
Becher, Tony & Trowler, Paul 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. ²Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Descombes, Vincent 2013. Die Rätsel der Identität. Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Harding, S. E., Jobling, Mark A. & King, Turi 2010. Viking DNA: The Wirral and West Lancashire project. Merseyside, Nottingham: Countyvise Limited; Nottingham University Press.
Jesch, Judith 2015. The Viking diaspora. London, New York: Routledge.
Krüger, Jana 2008. "Wikinger" im Mittelalter: Die Rezeption von víkingr m. und víking f. in der altnordischen Literatur. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. (Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, 56).
Scully, Marc, King, Turi & Brown, Steven D. 2013. Remediating Viking Origins: Genetic Code as Archival Memory of the Remote Past. Sociology 47(5), 921–938.
Smith, Adam T. 2004. The end of the essential archaeological subject. Archaeological Dialogues(11:1), 1–20.
Wiedemann, Felix 2010. Völkerwellen und Kulturbringer: Herkunfts- und Wanderungsnarrative in historisch-archäologischen Interpretationen des Vorderen Orients um 1900. Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 51(1/2), 105–128.
-interpretation verfolgt werden. Nach terminologischen Vorbemerkungen zu Spuren, Dingen und Objekten gilt es, das Verhältnis von Welt und Repräsentation kurz zu problematisieren. Ihre praxeologische Verbindung wird anschließend mit Hilfe von Latours Konzept der „zirkulierenden Referenz“ behandelt. Dabei wird auf Dingidentitäten und Objekt-transformationen sowie den Unterschied von Quellen und Daten im Zuge der Edition, Kartierung und Auswertung archäologischer (Be)Funde eingegangen. Voraussetzung für die Akzeptanz der Transformationen und somit auch der wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse ist in diesem Zusammenhang die standardisierte und konventionalisierte Herstellung von Beziehungen. Jede Information erzeugende Etappe basiert dabei auf einer ‚Reduktion‘ von Lokalität, Partikularität, Materialität, Vielfalt und Kontinuität sowie einer Amplifikation von Kompatibilität und Universalität. Die so entstehenden Punktualisierungen müssen dann durch Re-Kontextualisierungen im Rahmen von Interpretationen wieder de-punktualisiert werden.
Im Seminar werden zunächst durch ein Impulsreferat der Referentin die mit dem Begriff Sakralität verknüpften Dichotomien problematisiert und einige Theorien und Konzepte zu Raum und Orten vorgestellt. Aufbauend auf der Lektüre sowie den darin vorgestellten begrifflichen und methodischen Orientierungen sollen an konkreten Beispielen die medialen Praktiken und Markierungen verschiedener sakraler Räume behandelt werden. Dabei wird auch die Gelegenheit geboten, gezielt Problempunkte und Fragen zu diskutieren, die von den TeilnehmerInnen im Vorfeld des Seminars eingereicht wurden.
Besides shedding light on fundamental questions concerning e.g. the character of depositions in "Christian times", a general analysis of hoards can provide insights into ritual practices, value concepts and socio-economic change in various early historical societies. The material, object types and chronology of single artefacts within a deposition are thereby just as important for the interpretation as are its context, composition, and distribution of similar assemblages.
As a result of new findings, current research projects, but also in light of more recent theoretical and methodological approaches, the source material and prerequisites for interpretation have significantly expanded in recent years; the upcoming conference/workshop now offers the opportunity to examine either or both aspects anew.
The conference aims to establish new perspectives on old and new findings, and to give a platform for current research on depositions from Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. In the light of recent theoretical and methodological developments, we will explore the source
potential and interpretations of "hoards", and facilitate a transfer of ideas. In this year's meeting of the AG Spätantike und Frühmittelalter, to be held from 9th to 11th October 2019 in Frankfurt am Main on the subject of "Value Concepts. Hoards in Late Antiquity
and the Early Middle Ages – Practices, Contexts, Meanings", new research will be presented considering the following aspects:
• The variability of interpretations ranging from treasure to scrap, intentional offering to random loss, cache to storage, means of payment to recycling material, offerings for the dead to stolen goods, public pomp to private hiding place, remnants of political alliances to investments in the future.
• Transformations of materiality and material values.
• Human-object relationships and the relationality of space and time.
• The transfer of meaning(s) and questioning thereof.
• Religious and socio-cultural ideas and practices.
• Regional distribution of hoards and cycles of depositions: synchronous and diachronic studies.
• Potentials of new theoretical and methodological approaches.
discussion about post-factualism, they can make the production of knowledge more
transparent. But while corpora of ancient texts (‘text-editions’) have established a
science of their own, to date there have been few studies of the epistemological basis
and practices of knowledge production for corpora of ancient objects (‘thing-editions’).
Such studies are all the more important given that we are currently faced with the
challenge of how archaeological remains can be (re)presented digitally in their
materiality and rich diversity.
During the course of digitisation, it is important to revisit questions that already arose in the 19th century. On the other hand, the EAC’s Amersfoort Agenda (Schut et al. 2015) sets out some very useful pointers for addressing the challenges of the 3rd science revolution and highlights the need for some serious reconsideration, or “re-engineering”, of archaeological processes that were established in a different era when many of the tools we now have for data recording; analysis; research synthesis; and publication, were simply not available.
With such considerations in mind, our session aims to direct attention towards both the history of knowledge and the digital future of ‘thing-editions’. A particular focus will be placed on the role of digital corpora as an important tool for the preservation of cultural heritage internationally. Inasmuch as publishing research data make a substantial contribution towards the democratisation of knowledge and information, a discussion of the ethics and governance of digitisation is vital. This session will also consider ways of encouraging and supporting better sharing and re-use of heritage data, including:
- cooperative and multidisciplinary research tools.
- open access data and publication.
- wider use of open source software.
- Communities of Practice for IT users.
- FAIR digital data standards.
dass Wissen als vernetzte Informationen durch Praktiken entsteht, in ihnen verortet sin und sich mit diesen auch
stets verändert. Diese Praktiken können unbewusst
und inkorporiert, aber auch diskursiv und performativ sein. Sie konstituieren und strukturieren Raum. Raum und Wissen
sowie ihre Relationen werden in verschiedenen Zeiten und kulturellen Kontexten oft sehr unterschiedlich markiert, verstetigt und materialisiert. Die jeweiligen Formen
ihrer historischen Manifestation erlauben es, sie in den Altertumswissenschaften näher zu untersuchen. Für ihre Erforschung sind aber auch das Hinterfragen der impliziten und expliziten Vorannahmen sowie die kritische Reflexion der wissenschaftlichen Praxis notwendig.
Im Rahmen unseres Workshops möchten wir das Wechselspiel von Raum und Wissen näher untersuchen. Hierzu bieten sich die seit kurzem in der Diskussion befindlichen Begriffe ‚Raumwissen‘ und ‚Wissensraum‘ an. Es gilt zu prüfen, ob und inwieweit sie sinnvolle Kategorien für die Analyse der Antike und/oder der archäologisch-historischen Forschung darstellen. Unter ‚Raumwissen‘ begreifen wir vernetzte Informationsbestände, die Akteuren zur Orientierung im und am Raum dienen. Neben Verfahrensweisen und Handlungsorientierungen können dies u. a. auch raumbezogene Narrationen und Diskurse sein, die das soziale Handeln prägen. Als ‚Wissensraum‘ begreifen wir zum einen konkrete Orte der Wissensverstetigung – z. B. Bibliotheken und Sammlungen – und zum anderen raumbezogene Phänomene – z. B. Herrschafts-, Erfahrungs- und Handlungsräume, aber auch archäologische Kulturen, kollektive Identitäten oder wissenschaftliche Kommunikationsräume. Von besonderem Interesse sind für uns dabei die Formation und Transformation von ‚Raumwissen‘ und ‚Wissensräumen‘. Dabei gilt es, vor allem identitätsrelevante Zuschreibungen und Aushandlungen zu thematisieren. Unter anderem sollen im Workshop folgende Fragen diskutiert werden:
1) Welche Strategien gab und gibt es, Raum und Wissen
zu materialisieren und zu verstetigen? Wie wirken diese zusammen und wie können sie heute analysiert werden?
2) In welchen Verhältnissen standen Raum und Wissen in der Vergangenheit zueinander? Ist Vergangenheit selbst bereits ein ‚Wissensraum‘?
3) Wie sind unterschiedliche Wissensformen räumlich organisiert und welche Konsequenzen ergeben sich daraus?
4) Wie lässt sich Wissen über Raum systematisch untersuchen?
5) In welcher Weise unterscheiden sich ‚Raumwissen‘ und ‚Wissensräume‘ in der Vergangenheit von ähnlichen Konstruktionen in der Gegenwart, und welche Rolle spielt die Wissenschaft selbst bei der Veränderung von Raum und Wissen?
6) Wie wird und wurde in der Forschung mit den Themen Raum und Wissen umgegangen und welche Rückkopplungseffekte und Perspektiven lassen sich aufzeigen?
In den Vorträgen soll hierzu jeweils ein theoretischer Ansatz und seine Anwendung in den Altertumswissenschaften, z. B. anhand eines kurz skizzierten Fallbeispiels, vorgestellt werden. Ziel ist es, dem jungen wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchs eine fachübergreifende Theorie-Diskussionsplattform zu bieten. Der Workshop richtet sich insbesondere an Studierende und Promovierende, aber auch an PostDocs aller Altertumswissenschaften und nahestehender Fächer sowie der Wissenschafts- geschichte.