Archaeology of identity: introduction

Abstract

Archaeology of identity: introduction Can there be an "archaeology of identity"? The title of this volume circumscribes a contested fi eld of research. In particular, it is related to the debate about the ethnic interpretation of archaeological evidence. 1 This has been a topic of controversy in Germany in recent years, following Sebastian Brather's book "Ethnische Interpretationen in der frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie" and some of his other publications. 2 However, the present volume is not simply intended to continue the debate. Rather, it discusses the material traces of past identities in a broader sense, of which the question of ethnic interpretation is just one, if important, aspect, and refl ects on how archaeological evidence can be inserted into a general picture of the 'migration age'. Three related questions have emerged in recent discussions. Firstly, how can we classify archaeological groups or 'cultures', and to what degree do these correspond to ethnic (or religious, social or other) identities of the past? Secondly, can traces of past self-identifi cation be found in material remains? And thirdly, in what ways have modern national or ethnic identifi cations shaped such interpretations in the history of research? All three questions are essential, but methodologically, they should be kept apart. They specifi cally concern the interdisciplinary communication between archaeologists and historians. Therefore, most of the authors of this volume are to some degree familiar with both disciplines. Several contributions (Csanád Bálint, Irene Barbiera, Bonnie Effros, Cristina La Rocca/Stefano Gasparri, Piero Majocchi and Premysłav Urbańczyk) deal with the changing interpretation of archaeological evidence in the context of modern identity constructions, and thus add a valuable dimension to contemporary debates. 3 Others take an exemplary look at methodologically sensitive research questions mainly concerning the 5 th and 6 th centuries (Hubert Fehr, Jörg Kleemann, Dieter Quast, and Peter Stadler). The picture is completed by two methodological contributions from members of the 'Freiburg school' (Sebastian Brather and Philipp von Rummel). 4