2008. Nowadays, one would probably have called this chapter, 'Archaeology in the Neoliberal Age', as the impact of the Bologna process on the curricula of archaeology in the German-speaking regions is discussed, with its new emphasis on employability of archaeology students in relation to the aims of the academic discipline, ending with a rather bleak discussion of the difficulties of archaeologists in the job market.Eggert's textbook was, at the time of its publication, a highly valuable tool to systematize the way in which prehistoric archaeology was taught and practiced in the German-speaking countries. It did fill a gap, but at the same time suffered from a too strong orientation towards its predecessor, Eggers' long-outdated introductory book from 1959. Without such a strong emphasis on research history, the categories of archaeological materials, typology, and even the outdated discussion on historical vs. scientific dating, there might have been more room to fill a number of glaring gaps, such as a more extensive discussion of the role of archaeological sciences, beyond radiocarbon dating, or a broader discussion of (then) current theoretical debates. A more critical evaluation of other fundamental premises of archaeological reasoning, for example from a gender or postcolonial perspective is largely missing-at least, one could argue, from the later editions. Source criticism-What can we actually say?-gets a lot of space, often stifling student`s curiosity and creativity, as the answer offered by this text is largely negative. A critical evaluation not only of our material, but also our own conceptual biases and a discussion of alternatives would probably have been a good opportunity to motivate students to ask more probing questions and search for their own ways of making sense of the past.