________________________________________________________________Violence is not only a matter of bodily harm but can also be inflicted through structures. Contrary to violence in wars or police operations, direct effects of such structural violence are difficult to document. I discuss the notion of structural violence as developed by Johan Galtung. The paper then shows how current theoretical discourses in archaeology that are inspired by phenomenology and embodiment make the recognition of structural violence impossible, both in the present practices of archaeologists and as a facet of past life. I then illustrate structural violence in the field of academics in a description of the hurdles for foreign students who want to pursue studies in the United States. These problems need to be understood in the frame of a much larger network of similar effects. I conclude that Western academic practices are one of the many ways that reproduce the violently unequal structures of our present world. ________________________________________________________________Résumé: La violence n'est pas seulement un mal infligé directement mais peut être également infligé par le biais de structures. Contrairement à la violence déclenchée par les guerres ou les opérations policières, les effets directs de la violence structurelle est difficile à documenter. Dans cet article, je discute de la violence structurelle telle qu'elle a été développée par Johan Galtung. L'article montre alors comment les discours théoriques actuels en archéologie qui sont inspirés par la phénoménologie rend la reconnaissance de la violence structurelle impossible, à la fois dans les pratiques actuelles des archéologues ainsi qu'une facette du passé. J'illustre alors la violence structurelle dans le champ académique dans une description des obstacles créés pour les étudiants étrangers qui souhaitent faire leurs études aux États-Unis. Ces problèmes doivent être compris dans le cadre d'un réseau beaucoup plus large d'effets semblables. Je conclus que les pratiques académiques de l'Ouest constituent l'une des nombreuses façons reproduisant des structures inégales dans le monde actuel. ________________________________________________________________Resumen: La violencia no es solo un problema de dañ o corporal, sino que también puede infligirse mediante las estructuras. A diferencia de la REVIEW violencia de las guerras o de las operaciones policíacas, los efectos directos de esta violencia estructural son difíciles de documentar. En este trabajo analizo el concepto de violencia estructural desarrollado por Johan Galtung. Después, se demuestra que la actual teoría arqueoló gica está inspirada por la fenomenología y la personificació n, que hacen imposible reconocer la violencia estructural, tanto en las prácticas presentes de los arqueó logos como en una faceta de la vida anterior. Posteriormente, se pone un ejemplo de violencia universitaria con una descripció n de los obstáculos a los que se enfrentan los estudiantes extranjeros que desean continuar sus estudios e...

No abstract

Kerstin Hofmann and Philipp Stockhammer's essay on theory in ‘Beyond antiquarianism’ displays a mood that lacks self-confidence, despite a more optimistic outlook on theoretical reflections in their field than an earlier paper by Ulrike Sommer (2000b). The citations, amounting to 60 per cent of the text, are just an outward sign of that mood. A more revealing element is the essay's framing. Hofmann and Stockhammer do not discuss theory in German-speaking archaeology, as their abbreviation ‘GSA’ seems to imply, but rather restrict themselves to its prehistoric subdivision: the essay is actually only about ‘GSPA’. What are the preconditions for and the consequences of this self-imposed disciplinary (and disciplining) restriction?

No abstract

The first Mesopotamian city-states in the Uruk period (ca. 3800-3100 B. C.) pursued a strategy of commercial expansion into neighboring areas of the Zagros Mountains, Syria, and southeastern Anatolia. Recent research in these areas has located several Uruk outposts, in what is apparently the world's earliest-known colonial system. Although some Uruk "colonies" have been excavated, virtually nothing is known about either the operation of this system or its role in the development of local polities in Anatolia. Excavations at the site of Hacinebi, on the Euphrates River trade route, investigate the effects of the "Uruk Expansion" on the social, economic, and political organization of southeastern Anatolia during the fourth millennium B. C. Hacinebi has two main Late Chalcolithic occupations -a pre-contact phase A and a later contact phase B with high concentrations of Uruk ceramics, administrative artifacts, and other Mesopotamian forms of material culture. The Hacinebi excavations thus provide a rare opportunity to investigate the relationship between the Uruk colonies and the local populations with whom they traded, while clarifying the role of long-distance exchange in the development of complex societies in Anatolia. Several lines of evidence suggest that the period of contact with Mesopotamia began in the Middle Uruk period, earlier than the larger colonies at sites such as Habuba Kabira-South and Jebel Aruda in Syria. The concentrations of Uruk material culture and the patterns of food consumption in the northeastern corner of the Local Late Chalcolithic settlement are consistent with the interpretation that a small group of Mesopotamian colonists lived as a socially distinct enclave among the local inhabitants of Hacinebi. There is no evidence for either Uruk colonial domination or warfare between the colonists and the native inhabitants of Hacinebi. Instead, the presence of both Anatolian and Mesopotamian seal impressions at the site best fits a pattern of peaceful exchange between the two groups. The evidence for an essential parity in long-term social and economic relations between the Mesopotamian merchants and local inhabitants of Hacinebi suggests that the organization of prehistoric Mesopotamian colonies differed markedly from that of the better-known 16th-20th century European colonial systems in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Author(s)Gil