It would be churlish (as well as difficult), when my own work is treated so generously in this article, to object to its thrust too strongly. But agreement does not make for much of a dialogue! Let me state my agreements briefly, then.

1. 1. Versluys has nailed the terminological impasse: ‘Romanization’ is far worse than Romanization, because it has all the sins of the former without its conviction. But I have less sympathy for those TRAC speakers ‘ordered’ not to use the concept by their supervisors. If they can answer the many criticisms made of the concept, and make it work for them on their material, let them demonstrate this. If not, they need to find something better.

2. 2. Versluys also seems to me quite correct that some postcolonial approaches have often ended up in an unsatisfactory anti-colonialism. Yvon Thébert (1978) made a similar objection when he asked whether Bénabou (1976) had decolonized the history of Africa in the Roman period or simply turned it on its head. Denouncing ancient imperialism, colonialism and racial and sexual abuse might make us feel more comfortable, but it does not improve our analysis. I would add that it has also allowed British Romanists to return to a very traditional preoccupation: rewriting the Roman chapters of ‘our island's story’ in dialogue with contemporary imperial preoccupations.

3. 3. Versluys argues that we should ‘focus on “cultural transformation taking place in the context of empire” rather than on “imperialism and colonialism”’ (p. 8). This too makes very good sense. But I wonder what the word ‘cultural’ adds to this programme? Does it operate to exclude the study of other kinds of change (economic? technological? agricultural?). I doubt that this is what Versluys advocates and cannot see the advantage of arbitrarily demarcating one sphere of life as ‘cultural’ and excluding discussion of other changes. And I doubt that it would be possible to do this in any case. How would we talk about bathing without aqueducts, engineering and hydrology, as well as euergetism, notions of the body and foodways? Or about wine without thinking about techniques of agriculture, exchange systems and so on. If the abundant recent literature on entanglement – along with Hodder (2012) I am thinking particularly of Thomas (1991), Dietler (2010) and Garrow and Gosden (2012) – has taught us nothing else, it is that we cannot easily separate ‘the cultural’ from the rest of life. Or does ‘cultural’ give holistic accounts of change a particular flavour? Or does it designate some particular Schwerpunkte for study? I have more sympathy with this position, but I suspect that it now obstructs more than it illuminates our projects. Now that ‘culture’ is no longer the final chapter of a book which has already dealt with conquest, administration, politics, the army, agriculture, manufacture and trade, town and country, and late antique decline (the traditional format of volumes in the genre ‘provincial history’), perhaps we no longer need to signal so strongly that culture is all-encompassing and can simply study together the whole set of changes with which we are concerned?

Two contrasting arguments on the merits of symmetrical archaeology and an associated discussion of object agency appeared in a recent issue of Archaeological dialogues (Lindstrøm 2015; Olsen and Witmore 2015). While Torill Christine Lindstrøm extends a thorough, yet hardly new, criticism of the notion of object agency and of symmetrical archaeology, Bjørnar Olsen and Christopher Witmore provide a clarification in its defence (even though their article is oddly categorized by Archaeological dialogues as a ‘provocation’). In this reaction article, I take issue with a number of arguments by Lindstrøm and by Olsen and Witmore: first of all, I challenge Lindstrøm's representation of object agency, which I believe is in need of corrections. Second, I contend that Lindstrøm fails to identify a number of fundamental contributions within the framework of symmetrical archaeology, thus allowing her to caricature symmetrical archaeology as ‘old wine in new bags’. Third, even though Olsen and Witmore's defence offers helpful clarifications, I believe that their contribution invites us to discuss the vocabulary of symmetrical archaeology, scrutinizing why there is an apparent tendency to misunderstand its arguments and merits. Lastly, I take issue with Lindstrøm's dismissal of ‘different ontologies’ as a result of political correctness.

This paper results from a seminar and discussion series at Lampeter which was triggered by concern over the increasingly common view presented in archaeological literature which equates a caricature of‘post-processual’ archaeology with an equally naive understanding of relativism. In particular, it was noted that the recent book edited by Kohl and Fawcett (1995) contained many statements and editorial insertions which took this approach. Through a series of presented short papers and discussion we decided to explore why we were unhappy with these characterisations of both relativism and post-processual archaeology. These seminars were then summarised as a consensus document and associated comments (this present paper), which have themselves been through several stages of a joint editing process and further discussion (see also Hamilakis 1996; Holtorf 1996 and Pluciennik 1996 for related comments). We should make it clear that we are not unaware of far more sophisticated approaches to relativism within archaeology (e.g. Fotiadis 1994; Pinsky and Wylie 1989;Wylie 1992, 1993, 1994), but that we are here concerned with addressing a specific, and we believe inaccurate, viewpoint which seems to be gaining increasing currency.

It is increasingly acknowledged that 21st-century archaeology faces serious challenges from a variety of directions, ranging from the theoretical to the practical. Above all, the discipline’s entanglement with capitalism, capitalist ideologies and capitalist institutions is simply unsustainable. The concept of degrowth involves a reconceptualization of archaeology’s possible future(s) in terms of a withdrawal from capitalism and an emphasis on collective and caring praxis looking towards both a sustainable future and the possibilities of the immediate present. A degrowth approach to archaeology can provide a useful supplement to existing critiques and proposed alternatives to current practices. Degrowth proposals such as reorienting economic behaviours towards cooperative, convivial and dépense (communal use of surplus) activities while freeing people to pursue work they find meaningful have potential applications in archaeological practice that address some of the problems currently facing the discipline.

Current trends in historical archaeology emphasize the centrality of capitalism and colonial discourse in examining commonalities in the archaeologies of fictive worlds such as the British Atlantic. Yet far from informing archaeological practice, overly simplistic incorporation of postcolonial and neo-Marxian approaches in comparative archaeologies can actually impede our ability to disentangle the complexities of the early modern colonial experience in a socially relevant fashion. While the disparate colonial settlements of the Atlantic share a recognizable material culture as physical testament to the overarching impact of European expansion, contemporary implications and memories of colonial entanglements vary wildly. A critical consideration of the role of overtly theoretical approaches in developing a nuanced archaeology of the early modern period in the north of Ireland, where the construction of present-day identities is firmly rooted in dichotomous understandings of the impact of British expansion in the 16th and 17th centuries, raises broader questions about our responsibilities in addressing conflict and in redressing the disjuncture between espousing and practising theoretically informed archaeology.

Car j'ai découvert une grande vérité. A savoir que les hommes habitent, et que le sens des choses change pour eux selon le sens de la maison. Et que le chemin, le champ d'orge et la courbe de la colline sont différents pour l'homme selon qu'ils composent ou non un domaine. (A. de Saint-Exupéry, 1948: Citadelle, 28).

Why do we still speak of foragers and farmers? The division of societies into categories including ‘savage’ hunter-gatherers and ‘civilised’ farmers has its roots in seventeenth-century northwestern Europe, but has implications for archaeologists and anthropologists today. Such concepts still provide the frameworks for much intellectual labour including university courses, academic conferences and publications, as well as providing the basis for moral and political evaluations of contemporary societies and practices for a wide range of people, from governments to development agencies, ‘alternative’ archaeologies and parts of the Green movement. This paper examines some of the currents which contributed towards their establishment, and argues that writing ‘across’ such deep-seated categories may be the only way to challenge their hegemony and develop new questions. As an example recent trends in data and interpretation of the ‘mesolithic-neolithic transition’ in western Europe are discussed.

Many archaeologists are currently stuck in a mindset in which attention is paid exclusively to ideas that are ‘new’ and ‘revolutionary’. This fetishization of the ‘new’ leads us down a dangerous road as it promotes uncritical disdain of old ideas which remain valid and it advocates fads from neighbouring disciplines which are methodologically vapid and philosophically dubious. The objective of this paper is to question whether archaeology requires constant ‘paradigmatic change’ and my answer to this question is no. By constantly altering the status quo, archaeologists are promoting a culture in which theoretical ‘newness’ is given the spotlight and ideas are considered valid as long as they are original. Against this, I recommend a more critical view of new ideas and a revision of old ones – a culture which prioritizes the quality of archaeological theories regardless of whether they are new or old.

Biological determinism continues to rest on belief rather than evidence. The racial genetics of David Reich and his immediate predecessors exemplify science applied as racist ideology which obscures evidence for social criticism and moral accountability for inequity.

This paper is a review of recent academic debate dealing with the relationship between perception and landscape. It is suggested that there are two ways in which the perception of landscape is considered: the explicit and the inherent approach. The explicit approach isolates perception within the landscape as something between the observed and the cognitised. While an inherent approach does not isolate perception because it is embedded within ways of living - or being. The discussion is illustrated with archaeological examples.

The impulse to keep excavating, set against widespread failures to publish in a timely manner, has created a crisis of confidence for archaeology. This is especially so in Europe and North America, where contract archaeology has witnessed dramatic growth in recent decades, but it is not universally the case. Far from being the defining practice of the discipline, excavation is not the only technique for generating data relevant to archaeological problems and, ideally, should be deployed as one element in multi-stage, multi-scalar fieldwork strategies. In any given situation in different parts of the world, many locally specific factors affect the role and relative importance of excavation. Examples are given from the author's recent fieldwork in Greece, southern Armenia and the eastern Caribbean.

In answering the question ‘why excavate?’, much of the discussion in this stimulating session was pitched at the level of managerial considerations (in commercial archaeology) or the pros and cons of excavation for the discipline as a whole (in academic archaeology), with some attention paid to issues of publication. While acknowledging the great importance of that debate, and the many interesting points put forward, I would like to suggest that excavation also has significance for archaeologists on a much deeper, existential, level.

It is one o clock in the morning of December 20. Buffalo is cold, five degrees below zero Fahrenheit with a wind chill of minus twenty five degrees. The Niagara River is frozen solid except at the Falls. Sounds travel far on these cold nights. I hear a loud crash as if the ice is beginning to crack. I fantasize about the spring and the ice breaking up into thousands of small icebergs that float down the river. Icebergs bring to mind GIS software. Like icebergs, GIS software is frequently attractive and even starkly beautiful. Yet GIS systems are sometimes foreign and can be very inhospitable. As in the case of those frozen fantasies, GIS software may look better from a distance than close up. (Zubrow 1990b, 184)

Abstract

Exchange in the early Middle Ages has traditionally been studied from a ‘technological’, ‘economic’ or ‘socio-political’ perspective, and has examined such issues as transport practices, supply and demand, or the ways in which exchange helps to maintain and reproduce the socio-political order. A particular focus of research has been the significance of the exchange of prestige goods for the power of the king and the aristocracy. There has been almost no analysis to date of the complexity of the exchange system as a whole, which – together with the exchange of commodities and gifts – includes the keeping of objects. Nor have archaeologists paid much attention to the relationship between forms of exchange (and the norms and values associated with them) and the imaginary world from which ‘value’ is derived in exchange. In the early medieval Frankish world there seems to have been a close relationship between exchange and the imaginary Christian world. In this contribution, I will attempt to examine the relationship between exchange and the imaginary world in the early Middle Ages, and to demonstrate how the results can modify the picture we have of central places like Maastricht (an old centre) and Dorestad (one of the new emporia).

Until now, the Roman economy has been discussed primarily in economic terms. After the vehement debate between substantivist and formalists in the 1960s and 1970s, most historians and archaeologists have embraced an essentially substantivist perspective. Although this outlook has proven its value, it also seriously hampers a holistic view on the Roman exchange system by its focus on economic factors. Recent theoretical developments in economic anthropology, particularly through the work of Bloch and Parry, provide a model which is better suited to analysing the exchange system in its social, political and moral dimensions. It has been used succesfully in recent publications of the exchange system in the ancient Greek world. In this article, its possibilities for the Roman exchange system and the role of money in it will be explored.

The late Neolithic monument complex at Avebury, Wiltshire, continues to elicit much curiosity and attention. However, with excavation unlikely to occur in the near future, new and non-destructive means of exploring the monument complex are required. Although a number of such investigations have been undertaken, to date no concerted effort has been made to consolidate the results within a single framework. The opening stages of such a project, involving innovative research using GIS and Virtual-Reality technologies within an explicitly theoretical interpretative agenda, are described here.

This paper reconsiders German reflection on National Socialist pre- and protohistoric archaeology from 1933 onwards. It tries to do so by means of a case study of the academic contacts between the Dutch prehistorian A.E. van Giffen (1884–1973) and his German colleague H. Reinerth (1900–90). The approach adopted here differs from traditional historiographical writing on National Socialist archaeology in two respects. First, in its analysis of the academic exchange between the two scholars, the case study seeks to bridge the classical caesura between a pre- and post-war period. Second, contemporary and historical studies of National Socialist archaeology and archival sources, as well as interviews, have been incorporated in the research alongside the usual publications of the scholars involved. It is argued that with the approach taken here we may arrive at a more nuanced understanding of the different ways archaeologists have reacted to National Socialism over the past seven decades.

Two stereotype views exist with respect to recent developments in Dutch archaeology. The first holds that the confrontation with New Archaeology in 1968/69 signalled the beginning of an entirely new period in Dutch archaeology. At that point, Dutch archaeologists were first involved in international theoretical discussions, which they have more or less followed ever since. This resulted in the emergence of counterparts in Dutch archaeology of New (or processual) Archaeology, and later of post-processual approaches.

When can we say that a Bantu smith knows the ‘meaning’ of iron smelting - only when he explicitly recognizes the underlying sexual structure of it or simply when he knows how to go on smithing? Is structuralist theory, which considers meaning as codic and diacritical, really incommensurable with a phenomenological view of meaning as something primarily experiential? In this posthumous paper, Stefan Bekaert argues that the differences between both perspectives are gradual rather than fundamental. Drawing on the sexual metaphors in Sakata iron technology, he presents a tentative scale of meaning levels: the level of typified experience, the level of pragmatic motive, the level of (meta)physical intervention, the level of experiential gestalt, the level of explicit metaphor, and the level of codic oppositions. Rejecting the ‘one-world-ism’ predominant in many social sciences, he argues that humans inhabit and draw on many worlds at once. (DVR)